http://news.bbc.co.uk/[…]/8735625.stm

the house of lords recent drugs debate ( see link above)
 puts the cost to crimnalise drug users at 19 billion a year... thats lot of money we could spend on the NHS schools policing etc.

aside from that its damn unfair to punish some people that do some drugs.

where is the victim? why does the UK think criminalisation is better than education and help where the minority have a problem?

wake up and smell the weed UK govt.!

to true! we, the people of this nation demand change!

Absolutely.

For anyone who's interested, here's the result of the Lancet study of the most dangerous drugs and their relative rankings.

http://drbenkim.com/ten-most-dangerous-drugs.html

As far as I know, this only takes into account the individual, rather than the ramifications for society surrounding their use.

I think possibly the most plausible of them all is Cannabis - obviously different people are affected differently by it but it has been shown in trials to relieve stress, pain, help AIDS sufferers regain their appetite, reduce nausea in chemotherapy patients and relieve discomfort caused by glaucoma.

As well as this, if hemp was grown en masse, we would have excellent, cheap alternatives to timber, paper and many fabrics. If marijuana was legalised in the UK and available in off licenses, tobacconists, bars etc. the effect on society would be largely positive in comparison to alcohol, say, which we all know can lower inhibitions and lead to violent behaviour.

With a device like a Vaporiser, bars could cut out carcinogens almost entirely, as well as eliminating the strong odour and passive smoke factors.

It makes sense. Legalise it.

There's a part of me that hates all that (currently illegal) drugs do to society, but there's also a part of me that can see that if all currently illegal drugs were legalised and regulated properly, alot of society's crime would be eliminated. i.e. if people who wish to take heroin or cocaine in a safe and affordable form, they would not need to commit any crimes to fund their habit... therefore saving the country £billions. Also, I believe that education is the key to all this. If people were educated properly, they coukld make informed choices about their lifestyle.
I'm not a drug user, and never have been, but this has to be better than the current system we have.

By and large, the use of certain drugs is prohibited in an arbitrary and unfair manner that is not based on actual dangers but on tabloid fear and loathing. The cost of policing, process, incarceration and the damage this level of persecution inflicts on individual lives cannot be justified and is certainly not, in any sense, value for money. It drives a wedge between the police and the community that is particularly damaging.

People do drugs. They always will. With no legitimate outlets for purchase, this leads directly to the funding of criminal empires, in case you somehow hadn't worked it out. How many years of failed "get tough" policies will it take before someone dares to admit this? Why not do the adult thing and work towards minimising danger rather than increasing it? It's the only way you can make a positive difference and certainly the only way you can afford!

Drug dealers dont ask for i.d.

It is time we had a realistic approach to drugs - reduce death, disease and addicition. End Prohibition.

I think a lot of these people are ignorant. There are many comments about how we need people to be "educated" and how that will solve the problem.

People are educated on drugs. It's impossible to go through school without being educated on drugs what seems like a hundred times. Trust me, I'm a student so I know more about how we are educated than adults do.

And as for the idea that it will save the country money, what about the NHS? How much more money will the NHS need to cope with an increase in drugs use?

And lastly, the idea that because something will happen anyway it should be legal is preposterous. "People choose to use illegal drugs despite the risk of being criminalised. This will never change." is about as relevant as "people will always commit murder, so it should be legal."

Drugs have a negative effect on both the individual and on society. They should not be legal.

Spot on.

Legalising drugs would save the country multi-billions each year if properly implemented.

Why do politicians not even enter into proper debate on this subject?

If the ConDems really want change, they should take note.

legalise cannabis and cut out the dealers

@randomcomment

Comparing drugs use with murder negates your arguement. You'll find that Addaction (a chartity with a bias against drugs use estimates NHS costs at £1BN a year for drugs use compared with around £2.7BN p/a for alcohol related treatments alone).

If you wish to call for alcohol prohibition, feel free to create a request.

This is a discussion for those who consider themselves informed by the facts, lets keep the tabloid speculation out of here unless you wish to provide cold, hard facts.

   It seems at the moment that the governments current policy on drugs is that we do not care just leave it to the black market to sort it out. The result there is no minimum age to take any drug, there is no monitoring of the strength or content of any drug, there is no taxation on any drug (regardless of its future cost to society and the NHS), there no outlets to get drugs (pushing people into a black market).
   I could go on but to make my point legalising drugs would in the end mean more regulation of this roughly £7 billion market and that is what the large silent majority of drug taker would welcome and should be what all none drug takers should want too.

If we are really serious as a society in wanting to reduce crime and poverty we must address the prohibition of drugs.

It has not worked, it is increasing the crime figures inexorably and it is time to end this blanket prohibition of drugs.

Drug addicts must be treated by the NHS.

Drug addicts must be allowed to obtain their drugs from the NHS

We must educate the whole population about drugs and the damage it can cause

@richardcalhoun

Education has been the mantra for decades. Most people who "use" drugs are aware of the risks.

As with any substance - legal or otherwise you will always have people who go too far, that is not prevented or mitigated by criminalisation.

A sensible approach is to monitor for this and identify those who have not referred themselves for assistance and target that support intelligently.

Educating people is the only way forward. To do this effectively you need to know whos taking it, what their taking and how much. Adopting the 'Repeal Drugs Prohibition' would be the first be step into tackling the major problem of drugs in society.

Any drug that can be of help medically should be legalised in that aspect. But to allow use in general would be a highly irresponsible idea! Not only can it affect the users life, it can also affect other people.

The student Random Comment illustrates that children still have a lot to learn. Apart from the frankly silly 'Trust me, I'm a student so I know more about how we are educated than adults do.' which appears to be unaware that adlts also went through the education system, I doubt very much if most children do have much of an education about drugs, they get what they know from their peers. The assumption that drug use is bound to increase if the law were changed is not born out by the evidence, quite the contrary. While cannabis was Class C, use dropped. In Holland there are less heroin addicts now than before cannabis was legalised and other changes brought in such as needle exchanges. Addictive drugs are a health issue, not a police matter.

@RandomComment

What you fail to mention is that the vast majority of school based education is strictly abstinence-only based rather than being structured around harm reduction. Waving the prospect of drugs or sex or something equally exciting in front of teenagers faces and then firmly telling them "Just say no" is a system destined for failure.

I am sure that the education people are suggesting here, is one based on harm reduction - giving people the facts about drugs rather than scare stories, myths and propaganda.

As a "user" of certain psycho-active substances, and having many friends who also dabble, I can assure you that education is at the forefront of all of our minds, especially having been misled in the past by our school based education. Thankfully there are many independent, un-biased sources on the internet where one can gain a lot of information about their drug of choice and advice on how to stay safe. An unfortunate down side of the illegality of drugs is that one cannot be sure of the purity of the substance without the aid of testing kits. Repealing drugs prohibition would ensure the purity and relative safety of the substance and users and would actually decrease the amount of harm and cost to the NHS.

As for saying that all drugs harm the individual and society, well while that may be true for certain substances such as heroin, crystal meth and crack, there are many out there that can have significant medicinal and therapeutic benefits. The obvious one being cannabis and it's use for pain and nausea relief. The less obvious one (to those not in the know) being MDMA (Ecstasy) which for many years before prohibition was used successfully in counselling. Research is currently being undertaken in Switzerland where MDMA is being used in a therapeutic setting to treat PTSD. The results of this study could point towards MDMA being legalised as a prescription drug, which is at least a step in the right direction.

Legalisation

Reduces the cost of drugs to addicts and users significantly, whilst removing poor quality and dangerous adulterants. The knock on effect of this is a huge reduction in drug related crime (where obtaining finance to buy drugs is the major social problem in both addiction and impact on those uninvolved.

Increases the amount of police resources available, whilst also generating a new tax revenue branch (and given the price the NHS pays for controlled substances is 1/35th of the street price it removes the criminal involvement, cutting criminals out of a huges revenue fund.

Drug use continues almost unabated despite the best efforts of the police, criminalising people unnecessarily, causing them to lose jobs, etc...

A significant amount of prison space would be freed up to deal with actual crime which doesn't involve 'personal choice'.

Legalisation makes outreach and drug therapy programmes much more effective and obtainable, whilst removing a criminal stigma on those who seek help.

Legalisation would create a huge revenue stream for pharacutical companys (as well as jobs and new markets).

Legalisation would improve the situation in numerous foriegn countries where the drug trade is a primary menance.

In my opinion, this idea has missed the point of drugs prohibition.
It is inevitable that if drugs are legallised, more people will use them (I probably would at least try them, whereas now I wouldn't), as they would appear less harmful. This cannot be solved by education. Schools teach more about drugs/smoking/alcohol, their effects and associated problems than many other topics.
Even with education on smoking, millions of people still do it because it is legal. How many of these people would smoke if it was illegal? Not as many I'm sure. Legallising drugs would mean more people using them and more health problems. As already mentioned, the NHS needs no more strain and noone wants more poeple and their families to suffer the related health problems either!

Prohibition does NOT work. People will take drugs regardless of the law. If drugs are decriminalised or legalised, then the criminal element will have no way to make profit. Most drug/alcohol addicts have a propensity to addiction and most studies show that the pro rata addiction levels per head of population will not rise if drugs are legally available. Clean drugs do less harm and reduce the costs to the NHS substantially. I know that this is hot potato but it is about time that Governement took responsibility for this, bites the bullet and listens to people who really know.

Does anyone think Drug Prohibition has any impact on demand for drugs?
All it does is pour money into the hands of criminals.
Look at history, look at alcohol prohibition in the US in the 1920s. A huge boon for criminals and it wound up with the US Gov't deliberately poisoning alcohol, and killing hundreds of it own citizens - TO WHAT PURPOSE??

http://www.slate.com/id/2245188/pagenum/all/
 
Alcoholism rates were actually higher during this phase. Controlling and taxing alcohol provided a huge boost in the countries income helping them out of the Great Depression, and hugely reduced the number of poisonings due to dodgy liquor.
Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. And we've been repeating it for the last 40 years.
Prohibition plainly, obviously, does not work.

Lots of talk about the need to educate people better on the potential dangers of drugs in these comments. I totally agree.

The best way to educate (potential) drug users is by placing health warnings on the packaging. This is what we do with tobacco, and smoking rates have been consistently falling.

Of course with prohibition, criminals are the drug suppliers, and I don't think they are going to start doing this any time soon! So only when prohibition is repealed can we start to effectively educate.

This is just one practical example of how ending prohibition will have benefits. Others include quality/purity control, taxation, addiction treatment, and age restrictions - I've go to music festivals and have seen drug dealers approach young teenagers and sell them ecstasy (or some random pills that could have contained anything).

Prohibition is an extreme ideological policy that has failed. I want sensible, moderate government regulation, but that can only happen under a framework when it is legal to supply and possess drugs.

Our current drugs laws are an expensive shambles. They are clearly based on political whim rather than scientific evidence. The system desperately needs reforming.

Legalisation of one or two drugs won't work, as only benefits the drug user. Legalisation across the board is essential for removing the impacts on society of drug dealers, crime, drug funding crime, money laundering, corruption and so on.

Couldn't say it better - there is alot of tax revenue to be made, and as drug use is probably going to go up due to unemployment, lowerd living standards then it should at least be made safer...

Portugal is surely the leading example in this field. Since the decriminalisation of all (yes, all, including cocaine and heroin) drugs there in 2010 the level of teen drug use has plummeted, the level of HIV infection from dirty needles has dropped massively, the number of people seeking drug rehabilitation has more than doubled and they now have proportionally the lowest level of lifetime cannabis use in europe (only 10%). A greater percentage of teenagers in the USA take cocaine than the percentage of teenagers in Portugal who smoke cannabis. The prediction that Portugal would become a "drug tourism" destination also never came true.

Similar effects on drug consumption levels have been demonstrated in Holland where, again, less people are taking drugs post-decriminalization. The argument that the NHS will be over-run with drug related illnesses because "everyone will start doing drugs if they are legal" is simply and demonstrably wrong. In other countries decriminalisation has decreased the strain on health services. Imagine what effect that, coupled with taxation on drug sales and less heath issues due to purer quality drugs, would have on both the NHS and the economy?

The USA has some of the harshest drug laws and punishments in the world, and funnily enough some of the highest rates of drug abuse in the world. The USA also has one of the highest rates of gang and drug related crime in the world. This only reinforces the point that prohibition is not only wrong, it actually makes the problems caused in our society by drugs worse! Surely all this evidence points to the decriminalisation or legalisation of all drugs being the only sensible option?

Let's face it, the only reason not to decriminalise all drugs and put the money currently wasted on chasing people for toking a bit on rehabilitation services and oversight of the legal market, is that it would upset the Daily Mail and Daily Express.

Good reasons to do it: creates a proper private sector market opportunity which can be regulated, this cuts out the criminals, and police can then focus on going after illegal suppliers who're dealing in dangerous counterfeits, not the users.

Come on, coalition. Grow a pair. The entire premise of prohibition is bonkers, bonkers, bonkers and it completely flies in the face of everything that a proper liberal OR a conservative should stand for: personal choice, market, and tackling the causes of crime not just the symptoms.

I agree with legalising drugs (and no I dont use them or ever have). We are making a very large portion of our population criminals.
The money taken by the governement on the sale of drugs though I belive would be better spent on rehabilition centers to get people off drugs and on educating people so they do not start.
Lets stop putting money into the pockets of criminal gangs.
People have taken recreational drugs for thousands of years and show no sign of stopping, better to get some control over it by making it legal than forcing it underground.

I also agree whole-heartedly, alot of the worlds problems could be solved with the regulation of illicit drugs.

Prohibition does not work. End of story.

www.tdpf.org.uk

Prohibition gifts money to criminals

Prohibition is a failure .. the war on drugs is a failure all that has happened is more drugs are available and these are often polluted and in control of criminals who are making billions of profit which could be used to benefit the NHS and other services. Drugs are used whether legal or not I would prefer they are controlled by the state rather than gangsters to think otherwise is plain ignorant naive and backward thinking

"Let's face it, the only reason not to decriminalise all drugs and put the money currently wasted on chasing people for toking a bit on rehabilitation services and oversight of the legal market, is that it would upset the Daily Mail and Daily Express."

Nonsense. There are plently of left-wing, educated people who realise that drugs put strain on society and legalising them is not the answer. We already have serious problems with Alcohol and Tobacco misuse, and problems they cause the NHS. Why would we want to cause more of a burden. As for the issue of harm, Cannabis is harmful. It is more, not less harmful than tobacco. It is not physically but psychologically addictive. It should only be available to those who need medical treatment, and even then it should be treated with extreme caution.

If a simple perscription medication can be abused, then this gives us cause to be wary of using Cannabis for treatment.

The logic for repealing drug prohibition laws is unassailable. Why are some drugs such as alcohol and nicotine perfectly legal whilst other less harmful drugs, such as cannabis and MDMA, illegal?

It makes no sense why so much time, money and effort goes into criminalising people who seek alternative and safer forms of intoxication. It makes no sense why criminal gangs are given a near monopoly on one of the most lucrative industries in the world. It also makes no sense why two of the most toxic drugs, alcohol and nicotine, can be marketed and advertised to children.

Drug prohibition makes no sense. Our current form of selective drug prohibition makes even less sense. Educate people honestly about drugs and their various effects and then allow them to make their own decisions. Surely this is a basic and obvious human right.

I'm not convinced by this.

I would not want the UK to become a stag party destination in the same way as Amsterdam.

Also, you only have to look at the recent legal highs to see that people associate legality with safety and with something being 'OK'. Many people are just not as intellectually sophisticated as you give them credit for.

I agree that MDMA and cannabis are probably less harmful thatn alcohol and tobacco, although there isn't enough research to confirm this. Maybe some research should be conducted into alternatives to alcohol, which costs society billions. Legalising highly-addictive hard drugs such as heroin could be distastrous though.

We never learn from history. You can never prohibit something if demand is high enough. Although that doesn't mean that we should also legalise other activities such as badger-baiting, dog fighting to name but a few, drugs use is essentially a victimless crime.

If I choose to take drugs of any kind - whether legal and taxed or illicit - the effects are on my head. The difference between taking legal and illegal drugs is nothing to do with effect, more than in taking legal drugs, the tax thereon can restitute the state for any consequences of my behavior. With illegal drugs, the state is constantly losing money not just in lost tax revenue, but also in ineffectual policing.

You can't "educate" people out of drug taking either. If you could, no-one would smoke any more.

Large parts of Europe have now decriminalised. Although I'm not in favour of this approach, it's better than what we have now and at least a tacit recognition of the fact that the war on drugs - just like the war on terror - can never be won.

Prohibition is amoral, wrong and very illiberal.

Come to that, it simply does not work.

The drug lords would not be happy with this - but wait, maybe we don't want them to be happy. The reality is that people will always do drugs because we have our own sense of morality and it can't just be imposed by government.

So if people want to take drugs, why not make them regulated and safe, and also tax them. The government saves money on enforcement, it hurts organised crime, it makes drugs safer, it generates taxes to tackle the deficit and debt. It also upholds civil liberties.

After watching IDS on QT tonight, it begs the question how many criminals in remand had their first encounter with the police and gained a criminal record because of a minor drug possession charge?
That person becomes a criminal, and that changes an individuals view of themselves, how their friends and family view them, destroys career opportunities and possibly travel restrictions (unless you are Prince Harry).
Do we really think society is improved by criminalising a habit that many may just experiment with for a while in their youth?
Tax revenues on recreational products = cost of treatment for hard drug users

Most people who smoke Cannabis know the risks and effects more than most politicians. The same goes for Scientists who study its effects to a qualitative level. Both of these as well as non drug using members of the public would like to see Cannabis legalised. The only people not budging is the government who are supposed to listened to the more educated Scientists who they hired to be their advisor's. Since most were either fired or quit they formed a new independent advisory body not under the government's thumb and yet still the message is the same from everyone. Legalise Cannabis.

Drug prohibition wastes far to much taxpayer money.

Blanket law making all intoxication in city&town centres illegal before 8pm. + All drugs legalised with harm reduction information supplied with every purchase. = better.

A law making psychadelics illegal to use or be under the influence of outside of property one has permission to be on for the purposes of consuming drugs, would probably prevent most accidental deaths, and would still cost less to enforce than current laws.

Mandatory driving bans + prison sentence for a single incident of drug driving is perfectly acceptable.

I am a retired Probation Office and a large part of my working life was involved with drug related crime and the effects of that crime. Looking back over my working years, if there are two things I can say with certainty based upon first hand experience they are these:-

a. Prohibition does not work.

If it did there would be no alcohol in the USA, no pornography in the UK ... the list of things goes on.

b. The only social group that actually 'benefits' from prohibition is the 'criminal class'.

It is simply the most basic rule of economics. An items value is increased by its rarity. Prohibition does not stop those with a desire for the item from wanting it; it merely obliges them to pay more. There comes a point at which the return set against the risk ratio is viable and organised crime moves in. These people with a vested financial interest in the drugs trade are some of the loudest voices for maintaining prohibition in order to keep their profits high.

Another point worthy of mention - again from personal first hand experience. There is not one entire prison in the UK that is completely drug free. This may come as a shocking revelation to some as it is something the Home Office Prison Department tries to keep quiet - nevertheless the evidence is incontrovertible. In the light of that ask yourselves this. If the authorities are incapable of exercising effective prohibition in a secure and contained environment like a prison what chance is there in an entire country? This is not rocket science.

Let us be realistic, recreational use of drugs is something anyone can indulge in if they have the money however most people do not indulge. Why not? Well, mostly they make a choice not to. The ones who choose to will indulge regardless of legality. Alcohol (a drug) is freely available yet (despite the media hype) we are not a nation of alcoholics. The social experiment has been conducted and the results are in - the bulk of society is quite capable of making positive decisions.

The UK spends billions on the so called 'War on Drugs' - a 'war' it cannot win with its current strategies. The current legislation is simply an expensive placebo designed, on the one hand to keep the illegal drug trade in high profit and to placate the vocal 'moralistic' element of society, the small people who love 'control' who have been hoodwinked into believing the 'lie' that prohibition is the only answer. Our present economic situation is such that we can no longer afford the luxury of pandering to such voices and agendas.

Drug related offences (including thefts to raise money to buy drugs at the prices inflated by prohibition) make up a huge proportion of the crime statistics and are responsible for nearly three quarters of the prison population. Do the math.

Despite what I have said I do not advocate a drug 'free for all' by simply removing legislation at a stroke - doing so could create another crop of difficulties and there is little point in replacing one set of problems with another. Simple decriminalisation will not address the problem of illegal supply nor the very serious matter of 'tainted product' that is to say drugs cut with things like rat poison to 'bulk up' the product in order to increase profit. Decriminalisation will not reduce the flow of drug revenue to finance other illegal activities such as terrorism neither will it resolve issues of long term dependency or how to prevent such substances falling into the hands of children.

What is required is bold and radical reform of the legislation taking into account both fiscal and social issues. As a broad proposal for discussion several years ago a number of my former colleagues and I suggested the following:-

1. Make it legal for adults to possess a realistically limited quantity of recreational drugs solely for personal use.

2. Limit the source by which such substances could be obtained to pharmacies and premises licensed to supply.

3. Provide documentation, by way of leaflet, on each purchase listing possible effect, side effect etc. (As with any legitimate pharmaceutical product) plus information on where to get help with addiction.

4. Purchase may only be made upon production of proof of identity/age. The purchaser must sign a register thus making an official recording their purchase. (As per the old 'Poisons Register' that used to be in effect in this country).

5. Importation, strict quality control and supply to be by a government agency - not farmed out to a profit motivated private company. Price to be maintained at realistic affordable level - well below current street price.

6. Ensure there is a nationwide addiction recovery programme to offer assistance to those who have become dependent. (This was felt necessary on the grounds that addiction is a very complex matter and tends to be an indication of underlying psychological problems).

7. Dramatically increase the penalties for any person acting as an unlicensed supplier with a mandatory minimum of 7 years incarceration for anyone knowingly supplying children (or person deemed incapable of making an informed decision by reason of mental competence) with any recreational drug.

Obviously the above seven point are purely a starting point however they do address the key areas of the drugs debate. Legalisation reduces the 'glamour' of drug use - it ceases to be an act of 'rebellion'. Increased availability and reduced price of legally obtained substances coupled with increased penalties for illegal import/sale changes the 'return set against the risk ratio' thus making it a less attractive prospect for organised crime and terrorist funding. By the same token affordable drugs reduce the need to commit acquisitive offences in order to fund the 'habit' of those who have a dependency. The overall reduction in cost to the Customs and Excise, Criminal Justice System and insurance premiums would be immense - the only real losers being lawyers.

Someone is bound to say "Ah but what about the increased strain on the NHS with all the new drug users such a strategy would generate?" The answer is that the same thing was said about 'all day pub opening' - that the entirety of the country would degenerate into alcoholic anarchy overnight. That did not happen and there is no evidence to suggest that such reform of the drug laws would have any different effect. It is more probable that the NHS would in fact have less strain because they would not have to deal with conditions caused by 'dirty drugs' that have been diluted with, for example, Warfarin.

Properly managed, the legalisation of 'recreational drugs' could be a major step forward in this country.

It is clear that prohibition has not only failed, but made matters both here and in producer countries much worse. No drug should be illegal, but all should be taxed and quality controlled.

A zero tolerance should be imposed for any drug that can be shown to reduce the ability to drive. That includes alcohol but probably excludes tobacco. It's a lot simpler to say 'not even one spliff, glass, etc' than to say you can have a bit but not much.

http://peterreynolds.wordpress.com/[…]/

The coalition government has promised to repeal "illiberal, intrusive and unnecessary" laws. There can be no better example of this than the laws against personal use and cultivation of cannabis, particularly for medicinal reasons.

Prohibition is a failed, discredited policy. Drug laws have caused hugely more harm in our world than drugs themselves. Most organised crime and nearly all street crime is caused by drug laws. Our soldiers are dying in Afghanistan fighting an enemy financed by the illegal drugs trade. Why don't we just buy the whole damn crop for the next 10 years and put the Taliban out of business?

Legalise, regulate, tax. You pull the rug from underneath organised crime. You remove the reason for.street crime. You save billions in law enforcement costs. You make billions in new tax revenue.

YES! Prohibition ONLY supports organised crime, criminalises the innocent and allows the real problem cases to go unchecked.
Abuse of anything is not good, but it will happen no matter what. At least take control of it, out of criminal hands.

Holland has LOWER Cannabis use than UK, lower prison population, fewer teenagers using cannabis than the UK, and lower hard drug use than the UK.
Who would say this is a bad thing? Only an idiot.

Prohibition does not work, we all know this.

Its a backwards country that legalises 24 hour alcohol consumption but does not legalise cannabis.

Drug addicts should be able to get drugs on the NHS for free, reducing crime.

On the other hand - watching 'Police Interceptors' last night I saw a nice old lady get her patio door smashed in by a SWAT team in a drugs raid. They found 'a small quantity of weed' and her son looking slightly bashful. Ridiculous. Shouldn't we be doing raids looking for weapons rather than normal people?

It's glaringly obvious that prohibition hasn't worked. It's never been particularly difficult for anyone who wants to get high to get access to drugs. Prohibition has succeeded only in driving drug use underground, stigmatising the victims of abuse, and creating a gigantic and dangerous black-market that threatens lives around the world.

State-regulated, quality-controlled recreational drugs would starve the illegal drug trade that funds gangs and terrorist organisations, reduce the stigma that keeps addicts away from the help and support they need (as well as permitting better monitoring and preventative care), encourage and enable research into making drugs safer, and reduce the chances of injury and death from dangerously cut/contaminated supplies.

I could only give this proposal a 4 rating because of this nonsense:-

"Registration could be implemented in order to allow analysis of purchasing patterns to identify those who are potentially at risk from any proven health concerns."

I agree with the all the other points, particularly that drugs should be sold by chemists, as was the case before the insane controlled substances laws were enacted.

It's depressing to see how many other supporters of legalisation are calling for drugs to be supplied by the State - can't they see the middle ground between outlawing something and subsidising it?

Hi Jim

I understand what you are saying in terms of monitoring but I think it is a worthwhile trade-off in persuaduing government to "sell" a change in the law.

Personally, I advocate as much freedom from state interference as possible but It has to be recognised that some people are unable to prevent themselves from going too far if an easily available supply becomes accessible.

I'd be happy to remove that stipulation but I think compromise on all sides of this discussion is important.

As a non drug user I support this.

The cost of criminalising drugs is far too high we can not afford it.

It encourages the drug barons to build empires on the procurement and supply because the rewards are so high, even thoug the risk is high too.

Legalise the supply chain and the drug empire will collapse.

A large proportion of the crime we suffer as citizens is drug related, mugging and petty burglary by youths to obtain drug money, driving accidents by stoned people (can't do it at home so take the car out to a quiet spot), etc.

Require registration of drug users so they can buy from official outlets and be monitored too.

It all makes sense to me. A fairer system, with less cost and the benefit of some income too.

couldnt agree more.
politicians WAKE UP!

I agree. Legislation against drug use causes far more harm than good. The vast majority of drug users are respectable pro-social people who do not need to be criminalised. The minority who are not are usually socially deprived, mentally ill and in need of compassion and treatment, not incarceration.

All very true apart from:

'This is a nasty, cynical, puritanical law aimed at punishing those who seek a different release from you'

Not true - even our current prime minister and the US President have used drugs including cocaine. It just shows how hypocritical our drug laws are.

This is pretty similar to what the Lib Dems already had in their manifesto as their plan for tackling drugs.

I've posted this already on another thread, but it's probably more appropriate in here:

Firstly, prohibition isn’t working. It’s a failed policy which hasn’t addressed any of the problems which it set out to solve. Prohibition has also created a multitude of unintended consequences, yet previous governments have insisted on throwing £1.2bn a year on measures aimed at tackling problem drug use, with no idea as to what the overall effect of this spending was.

We’re told that keeping drugs illegal reduces their availability and lessens willingness to use them. In a recent survey: 25% of 13-15 year olds could get hold of cannabis easier than they could obtain alcohol; 15% could get hold of cocaine and heroin easier than alcohol.

When the misuse of drugs act was first introduced, there were 2,000 heroin addicts in this country. Today, there are over 200,000. To me, it doesn’t sound like they’re less available than they were 40 years ago. It hasn’t reduced drug related crime either. Last year, it cost £13.9bn, most of which would cease if a sensible drug policy was adopted.

It’s estimated the UK’s illegal drug industry is worth in excess of £8bn per year, most of which goes into the pockets of criminals and terrorists. One only needs to look to Afghanistan, Columbia and other parts of Central and Southern America to see what the drugs trade has done to some areas. It’s worth around £300bn worldwide, so why wouldn’t they want a share of it? They’re so desperate for a share: they’re prepared to kill and enslave people to help them to produce the drugs for shipping around the world.

No matter how much money and resources are thrown at the problem, it won’t go away. Alternative methods need to be sought out.

Albert Einstein’s definition of insanity was doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, by his definition, drug laws, and all who support them, are insane.

One doesn’t need to agree with drug use to disagree with prohibition. When one considers drugs which are already legal, namely alcohol and tobacco, lots of illegal substances are actually less harmful. Unfortunately, because they’re illegal, the people who sell drugs only care for profit and not quality of produce. Legalising illegal drugs would reduce a lot of the harms associated with them.

People have a right to choose which substances they put into they’re body based on facts, not a bunch of scare stories, opinions and hearsay. Drug use shouldn’t be a legal issue: it should be a matter for public health.

Seems like some people in our country are awake! Bang on- the only people who lose out on legalisation, regulation and taxation of drugs are the lawyers and dealers. I used to be a regular user off class A drugs and I know many people who still take illegal drugs who are lovely, law-abiding people who are being criminalised for choosing what they put into themselves. Take out the difficulty of aquisition and drug-related crime like theft would drop SIGNIFICANTLY.

Prohibition of alcohol didn't work for the U.S.A and likewise with pornography here... and it's not working with drugs now.

Transform Drug Policy Foundation (www.tdpf.org.uk) last year published 'After the War on drugs: Blueprint for regulation' that details how post prohibition regulation and control of drug markets can operate: http://bit.ly/5QhrD (full text online as pdf)

It describes what would be needed to replace the MDA 1971, and also explores reforms neccassary in international and UN law.

Lets keep it simple. Some drugs are very harmful, some are slightly harmful, some may not be harmful. The degree of harm varies according to levels and types of usage. Some drugs are legal some are not. The legality and relative illegality does not correlate with degrees of harm - either individually or socially.

We need a system that is based on harm with a responsibility on goverment to introduce an independant and objective process to assess that harm.

Yes.
The user should also be licenced (at their cost) so they know how to take and the dangers of their chosen drug, including a first-aid course and medical check.

I would urge anyone reading this to consider the content of the Transform Drug Policy Foundation's Blueprint for regulation.

This provides a good starting point on which to consider the available methods for regulating and taxing the drugs industry that is already present in the UK.

From a financial, public health and personal freedom standpoint, the legalisation and regulation of recreational drugs would be the best possible action this new government could perform for our country.

Hundreds of Millions in new tax revenue, proper quality control of substances, age regulation of those purchasing those substances and freeing up vast swathes of police and court time.

Radical economic situations require radical ideas- don't let the daily mail tell you what to think! People should be allowed to take thier own risks and taxed accordingly.

Very well argued. But why stop at VAT? There should be additional duty, just as there is on cigarettes and alcohol.

The money earned in tax, and the savings made in policing and crime reduction would surely be immense - and go a fair way towards reducing our terrifying defecit.

There are already a number of good and mature comments on this matter,
the only thing i would like to add is this:
The reasons 'why' people use certain substances (be they alcoholic beverages, coffee, cannabis, ecstasy etc) are not important. It is neither important nor necessary to point out that 'drugs have been with us for thousands of years etc'. What is important is freedom and the right to responsibility.
As much as we like to pretend we are still in the grip of christian mythology. That is why certain pleasures are illegal. It is not because of any other reason. Puritanical christian mythology needs to be put in its rightful place, the british museum.
I applaud Nick Clegg and this website, I hope that we are not being conned yet again by rhetoric and political tricks. I have faith in Britain and it is time we set an example if not for the rest of europe then for our 'friends' across the atlantic.

Speaking out against "The Jamie Oliver Approach", Andrew Lansley (Health Secretary) said people needed to take responsibility for their own health. He was talking about food but this right should apply to mind-altering substances too.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/10459744.stm

@jameshg

I have no problem with your suggestion of including duty on drugs. I think you have to be careful though not to make them cost the same or more as the black market as this will not put existing suppliers out of business.

It'd be interesting to see a cost analysis of the different substances and make a decision from that.

Perhaps duty may need to be included at a low rate to begin with and gradually increased in budgets?

That said, its nice to see some considered and rational discussion in this thread.

As a liberal person I believe in free will. What people chose to do to themselves should be their decision. Everyone’s opinions differ but my personal one is that if an action doesn't harm another individual (or living creature) then it should not be prohibited by those who would rather not partake in the activity themselves.

To me an end to prohibition would be the fairest thing to do as we only live once so why should rule makers prevent people from experiencing all that they wish. I would have the industry heavily regulated and taxed, with much more focus on people making informed choices.

For the record I have never taken drugs.

Unfortunately I believe this site will just be a gimmick to allow cherry picking of ideas that the coalition wish to enact anyway. Simply by looking through this forum to find support they can justify the decisions that they have already made.

Hopefully though a reasoned debate with contributions from experts in the field could follow, rather than just firing anyone who doesn't have the same personal opinion as you like the old administration did with Professor David Nutt.

Add on to previous comment:
Most comments on this subject have suggested that drugs prohibition ban is a matter for public health etc. I am of the opinion that it is not.
Let us take red meat (beef etc). If one eats too much red meat one is less healthy, but there are no warnings on steaks in Tesco's.. If one sits on the couch all day and never exercises one will end up getting fat and unhealthy, but there are no such warnings on couches.. If one eat's a hash-brownie once a week (cannabis need not be smoked, the fact that it is mostly smoked is a consequence of the black market super-inflated prices) one will not have ANY adverse effects..
The drug laws are a consequence of the nanny-government type. Responsibility should and does lie with the people. Just as your local MP should not be expected to brush your teeth every night he should also should not be expected to moderate what you do with yourself.
End of story.

I am not a drug user and like a good drink.

Even I can see drinking is more harmful than cannabis. I see drunken yobs smashing up the town centre every Friday night. I think we should definitely review these laws.

I would like to see a full televised debate on this issue and be presented with all the facts and figures.

There was recently a televised debate in the US on Fox.

http://usaguns.net/patriots/drugwar.html

Not sure if anyone has already posted this but there is an excellent article on the failure of (alcohol) prohibition here: http://www.independent.co.u[…]on-laws-failed-1997227.html
gives a whole new perspective on drugs prohibition laws

ooh.. we complained, they listened and this thread is re-opened. Nice one :)

Thanks for joining me in that Gildas!

Mods - we realise this is a challenge at present so no criticism is aimed at you but despite criticism by the media, some of us remember the election promise to do this and take this site seriously.

Lets hope it delivers some changes!

I believe that implementing this one idea could save more than 25% of the police budget and health budget combined, when the costs of keeping prohibition are considered across the whole public sector. The NHS cost of treating people for the effects of addiction to clean, legal, properly regulated drugs would be more than offset by the reduction in treating: the casualties of violence associated with drug crime; the casualties of prostitution motivated by the need to fund the purchase of illegal drugs; AIDS, hepatitis B and other diseases transmitted by shared needle use, rendered unnecessary by legalisation; the victims of adulterated illegal drugs.

Consider also the cost to society of policing all the crime caused by the violence and burglary associated with the fact that drugs are illegal; the court time of prosecuting those who commit crimes related to selling or buying illegal drugs; the cost to the prison service of keeping incarcerated those whose crimes can be attributed to the illegality of drugs.

The completely counter productive attitude that governments have towards drugs is making me believe more and more that they just want to not give us the freedom to take drugs because they want people to just spend all their lives working and watching TV.

There is so much good sense being spoken here just listen to it and take a bold step legalise cannabis and MDMA decriminalise heroin cocaine.

The country will be wealthier and healthier for it and the problems caused by drugs right now can be dealt with.

At the risk of repeating most other people, it's clear to most people that the "war on drugs" is merely a pr exercise and is in it's very nature unwinable. We need a pragmatic and unpatronising way of dealing with drugs that removes the control and profit from the hands of people involved in other illegal acts. Legalisation is the only way to do this. The increased tax revenue and better quality will pump money into the economy and reduce unnecessary deaths through dodgy gear or issues related to having to deal with nefarious individuals when purchasing drugs.

The drug classification system is neither logical or effective and cannot be rationally defended.

Drug war is a very recent development in human history, it's origins in the early 20th century are indelibly stained with race hatred and capitalist greed.

It has achieved nothing other than create the largest, most powerful and wealthy global criminal syndicates the planet has ever seen and empowered an astronomic governmental power and control expansion in response, which requires obscene amounts of public resources to maintain.

Prohibition globally funds organised crime, insurgencies and terrorism and has done for decades, kills many thousands each year, has militarised domestic policing and blights the lives of millions of otherwise law abiding citizens who's only crime is desire for less harmful but not officially sanctioned drugs.

End drug prohibition & you end the attraction of the illicit.
End drug prohibition & you end the funding of criminals.
End drug prohibition & you end the escalation of use.
End drug prohibition & you end the peer pressure.
End drug prohibition & you end the enormous cost in lives.
End drug prohibition & you end the smuggling.
End drug prohibition & you end the power of gangs in prison.
End drug prohibition & you end the wastage in time & money.

And so on.

It is said that 80% of crime is drug related and that our prisons are full of people convicted of crime carried out to fund a habit.

As so many have said previously, prohibition never made anything go away - in fact prohibition feeds organised crime.

If Government were to repeal the prohibition of drugs the benefits would be enormous.

Addicts would benefit because there would be quality control on the drugs produced - no more contaminate drugs which is what causes most of the deaths. The would be able to buy it over the counter instead of dealing with very unsavoury people.

The general population would benefit as the Police would not have to spend time chasing suppliers; the cost of imprisoning all of these so called criminals would cease.

Jobs would be created in the Pharmaceutical industries and in outlets.

Heroin could be sourced from Afghanistan giving the farmers an income and making the Taliban a thing of the past - so we could bring the lads home.

In the words of Howard Marks "there are three ways to distribute drugs - retail, prescription or organised crime"

It is a shame that successive governments have chosen the latter method.

This is a debate that Labour avoided for to long, spent a lot of money locking people up and got nowhere.

I hope Clegg will do at least one liberal thing, and allow adults to use cannabis at the very least. A quarter of the country voted Liberal, and Liberalism seems very thin on the ground at the moment..

I agree with legalising all drugs and selling through Chemists, where I disagree is the idea that the use of drugs is OK.

My view is that since every teenager in the country knows who to ask to access drugs it's clear prohibition just hasn't worked despite all the money invested to stop it.

Dramatically increase the penalties for supply, (even to a users mates), reduce the cost to undersell the outlaws and deliver a safe "individual" supply through the High St.

Each packet then can hold a safety leaflet, the exchequer enjoys the profit to pay for the NHS, the drugs are of known quality, big savings at Customs and Excise, big reduction in mugging and burglery leading to reduced insurance premiums, everyone wins.

The Dutch idea that it's OK to hold some drugs and use some drugs does nothing to address the criminality which needs to be stopped as a necessary first step to re-education (like with smoking).

Every time this is debated on TV the TV companies produce wounded parents destroyed by the death of an offspring, and it is tragic. But national policy has to stand aside from individual tragedy for the greater good of the majority. It's pity politicians have never had the balls to face up to this problem.

I finish by saying I'm dead against the use of drugs but would like to see a common sense pragmatic solution to the criminal disaster area drugs have created. It's time to stand and fight back.

"Every time this is debated on TV the TV companies produce wounded parents destroyed by the death of an offspring,"

Yes, it's annoying they always get the parents who just say "drugs are bad" and not those that say their child died due to the problems associated with the current system... ie. from bad/missold drugs, from thinking heroin is as safe as extasy (as they're both class A) or from getting into trouble with their dealer.

What drug is too dangerous to control, so dangerous that its manufacture and supply is best dealt with by gangsters? Prohibition is idiocy.

While I am not, and never will be, a drug user myself, I wholeheartedly agree with dropping the prohibition around drugs.

As has been mentioned:

1) Prohibition does NOT work.
2) A huge amount of prison space will be freed up.
3) Much of the funding for criminal gangs will be taken away.
4) It costs alot of money upholding a system that does not work, so lets get rid of it.
5) We can get of money by taxing these drugs like alcohol & cigarettes.
6) Drugs are a victimless crime, except in the same ways as alcohol & cigarettes claim lives.
7) At the end of the day, it's none of your, nor mine, nor the state's business what people do to their own bodies.

I agree with this idea - I'm not a drug user myself (I wouldn't want to risk my health for it) but the main problem I've always had with drugs is the fact that certain drugs fund all kinds of organised crime and dangerous regimes in e.g. South America and the Middle East.
I can't predict what these gangs will do without drugs money; whether they'll undercut legitimate businesses or just expand their other activities, like people trafficking or prostitution. But, the current situation isn't working, so taking away a big chunk of their income would at least do something.

Regulation would also stop illegal cannabis suppliers of enhancing the strength of weed that causes psychosis and let weed go back to being less potent and less dangerous.

Wanna save £18 billion every year and dramatically cut the crime rate? You know what to do.

Q: Who caused the most violence during alcohols
prohibition ?

A: The people with all the guns who were making a
profit from it (Gangsters).

Q: Who causes the most violence now during
marijuana prohibition?

A: The people with all the guns who are making a
profit from it (Police).

Not hard to see when you take a step back and question the lies churned out by the people who will lose money once marijuana prohibition goes away. A trillion dollars of funding over 40 years for a war against British. citizens. A war which in 40 years has not met a single goal it has tried to achieve as reported by the government. A trillion poundss plus every scrap of personal property and money seized from harmless marijuana users. Now ask yourself why so many other crimes go unstopped, the answer is because they don't have the profit margin for the police that marijuana does. Go ahead and try to prove me wrong .

Look at portugal and how a more relaxed drug aproach has reduced all drug related incidents. Lets lead the world towards legalisation and end the failed war on drugs.

People would have a choice of what strenght they want to smoke. The majority of people wouldn't want to smoke high strenght weed all day everyday instead opting for a more relaxed high. Medical patients would also be able to purchase the strain best suited to their condition.

The term medical marijuana took on dramatic new meaning in February, 2000 when researchers in Madrid announced they had destroyed incurable brain tumors in rats by injecting them with THC, the active ingredient in cannabis.

The Madrid study marks only the second time that THC has been administered to tumor-bearing animals; the first was a Virginia investigation 26 years ago. In both studies, the THC shrank or destroyed tumors in a majority of the test subjects.

Most Americans don't know anything about the Madrid discovery. Virtually no major U.S. newspapers carried the story, which ran only once on the AP and UPI news wires, on Feb. 29, 2000.

The ominous part is that this isn't the first time scientists have discovered that THC shrinks tumors. In 1974 researchers at the Medical College of Virginia, who had been funded by the National Institute of Health to find evidence that marijuana damages the immune system, found instead that THC slowed the growth of three kinds of cancer in mice -- lung and breast cancer, and a virus-induced leukemia.

The DEA quickly shut down the Virginia study and all further cannabis/tumor research, according to Jack Herer, who reports on the events in his book, "The Emperor Wears No Clothes." In 1976 President Gerald Ford put an end to all public cannabis research and granted exclusive research rights to major pharmaceutical companies, who set out -- unsuccessfully -- to develop synthetic forms of THC that would deliver all the medical benefits without the "high."

The Madrid researchers reported in the March issue of "Nature Medicine" that they injected the brains of 45 rats with cancer cells, producing tumors whose presence they confirmed through magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). On the 12th day they injected 15 of the rats with THC and 15 with Win-55,212-2 a synthetic compound similar to THC. "All the rats left untreated uniformly died 12-18 days after glioma (brain cancer) cell inoculation ... Cannabinoid (THC)-treated rats survived significantly longer than control rats. THC administration was ineffective in three rats, which died by days 16-18. Nine of the THC-treated rats surpassed the time of death of untreated rats, and survived up to 19-35 days. Moreover, the tumor was completely eradicated in three of the treated rats." The rats treated with Win-55,212-2 showed similar results.

The Spanish researchers, led by Dr. Manuel Guzman of Complutense University, also irrigated healthy rats' brains with large doses of THC for seven days, to test for harmful biochemical or neurological effects. They found none.

"Careful MRI analysis of all those tumor-free rats showed no sign of damage related to necrosis, edema, infection or trauma ... We also examined other potential side effects of cannabinoid administration. In both tumor-free and tumor-bearing rats, cannabinoid administration induced no substantial change in behavioral parameters such as motor coordination or physical activity. Food and water intake as well as body weight gain were unaffected during and after cannabinoid delivery. Likewise, the general hematological profiles of cannabinoid-treated rats were normal. Thus, neither biochemical parameters nor markers of tissue damage changed substantially during the 7-day delivery period or for at least 2 months after cannabinoid treatment ended."

Guzman's investigation is the only time since the 1974 Virginia study that THC has been administered to live tumor-bearing animals. (The Spanish researchers cite a 1998 study in which cannabinoids inhibited breast cancer cell proliferation, but that was a "petri dish" experiment that didn't involve live subjects.)

In an email interview for this story, the Madrid researcher said he had heard of the Virginia study, but had never been able to locate literature on it. Hence, the Nature Medicine article characterizes the new study as the first on tumor-laden animals and doesn't cite the 1974 Virginia investigation.

"I am aware of the existence of that research. In fact I have attempted many times to obtain the journal article on the original investigation by these people, but it has proven impossible." Guzman said.

In 1983 the Reagan/Bush Administration tried to persuade American universities and researchers to destroy all 1966-76 cannabis research work, including compendiums in libraries, reports Jack Herer, who states, "We know that large amounts of information have since disappeared."

Guzman provided the title of the work -- "Antineoplastic activity of cannabinoids," an article in a 1975 Journal of the National Cancer Institute -- and this writer obtained a copy at the University of California medical school library in Davis and faxed it to Madrid.

The summary of the Virginia study begins, "Lewis lung adenocarcinoma growth was retarded by the oral administration of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabinol (CBN)" -- two types of cannabinoids, a family of active components in marijuana. "Mice treated for 20 consecutive days with THC and CBN had reduced primary tumor size."

The 1975 journal article doesn't mention breast cancer tumors, which featured in the only newspaper story ever to appear about the 1974 study -- in the Local section of the Washington Post on August 18, 1974. Under the headline, "Cancer Curb Is Studied," it read in part:

"The active chemical agent in marijuana curbs the growth of three kinds of cancer in mice and may also suppress the immunity reaction that causes rejection of organ transplants, a Medical College of Virginia team has discovered." The researchers "found that THC slowed the growth of lung cancers, breast cancers and a virus-induced leukemia in laboratory mice, and prolonged their lives by as much as 36 percent."

Guzman, writing from Madrid, was eloquent in his response after this writer faxed him the clipping from the Washington Post of a quarter century ago. In translation, he wrote:

"It is extremely interesting to me, the hope that the project seemed to awaken at that moment, and the sad evolution of events during the years following the discovery, until now we once again Œdraw back the veil‚ over the anti-tumoral power of THC, twenty-five years later. Unfortunately, the world bumps along between such moments of hope and long periods of intellectual castration."

News coverage of the Madrid discovery has been virtually nonexistent in this country. The news broke quietly on Feb. 29, 2000 with a story that ran once on the UPI wire about the Nature Medicine article. This writer stumbled on it through a link that appeared briefly on the Drudge Report web page. The New York Times, Washington Post and Los Angeles Times all ignored the story, even though its newsworthiness is indisputable: a benign substance occurring in nature destroys deadly brain tumors.

cannabis use is a victimless crime.

How can there be such a thing as a victimless crime? It makes no sense and is an afront to freedom. Where is the victim in somebody buying an 8th of cannabis to smoke at home of an evening? Yet they can be questioned, beaten, kidnapped and their lives destroyed. The only victim is the poor guy that gets caught and the only crimes committed are by the state on his person.

There have been many comments here saying something to the effect that alcohol and cigarettes already cause such harm that it would be wrong to legalise other drugs. However, I have not spotted anyone following this to its logical conclusion and proposing that we add alcohol and tobacco to the list of prohibited drugs.

In the interests of finding common ground, surely we can all agree that the first step in determining our drug policy is that all drugs should be evaluated according to the same non-arbitrary criteria. That way, if alcohol and tobacco really deserve their place as two of the most popular legal drugs, they will have earned it in the scrutiny of fair and honest comparison.

If, on the other hand, either turns out to be more dangerous than a currently prohibited drug, then either that currently prohibited drug must be moved into the sphere of legal regulation, or alcohol or tobacco (as the case may be) must be moved into the list of prohibited drugs. Everyone happy with that?

Sativex is a legal cannabis based medication but my LHA will not pay for it. If I want to grown my own cannabis alternative I could be locked up for 14 years (you don't get that for Rape/Murder these days).

So Cannabis obviously works for medical treatments and is perfectly OK if your a multi-billion pound pharmicutical company but not if you're a tax paying UK citizen.

This is because all MP's are corrupt puppets of the alcohol, tobacco & pharmicutical industries.

Cannabis used to be legal until drugs companies patented synthetic pain-killers and it was demonised by lobby groups.

So prove me wrong - legalise it, your own scientists (that you sacked) say its safer than alcohol, you cannot afford to keep locking people up for possession, you cannot stop it with prohibition, 1 in 10 of the population use it, for most the worst side-effect is getting caught.

Legalising drugs will not only cost the government considerably less, they will then be able to make money off of it. It will ensure quality control, because no one will be able to cut cocaine with solpadeine or anything like that in a shop. AND it will mean that more money can be spent on educated people about drug use in a truthful manner, rather than the fabricated "facts" we get given now.
The money made from it could be used to help out the addicts and serious misuser's, in a considerably more effective manner than prison.
I imagine that, should everything be legalised, there will be a initial period in which things don't go well, and the press (I imagine the Daily Mail will be especially bad) will condemn the removal of the anti-drugs laws, but after a while that will calm down as people get over it, and it will be a very positive change.

If anyone takes 5 minutes to read about the war on drugs, you can quickly see it makes no sense at all. Why should a more dangerous drug be legal, and advertised while you get locked up for doing safer ones?

People do 'legal highs', such as mephedrone and alcohol because they see other drugs are illegal so the legal ones must be safe. If all were legal and regulated, then people would actually see alcohol as a drug, rather than something seperate.

It amazes me that people think alcohol is not a drug. I once got 'dealt' alcohol by a bar tender as he talked to his friend about how much he hated drugs. Hypocritical?

And when people say drug dealers should be locked away for murder, what about people who work in supermarkets, off licences, pubs and bars. They are making money of peoples addiciton, misery and death just as much as dealers. But yes it is better as they dont kill other supermarket staff or bartenders, because it is legal. Thats the difference.

totally. dropping the abuse started in the 1971 act would save more than half of the prison bill, would result in tax being collected, would stop the police spending all their time enforcing this and make them get on with catching offensive criminals.

Legalise the lot and give us back our freedom!

Prohibition is a crime against humanity

END IT NOW!!

I agree with Carl but people should be allowed to grow their own cannabis. And don't forget to legalise chlorodyne,an excellent cough cure sold by Dr Collis among others for years up to 1972 when it was banned.

An excellent idea. Just hope they listen!

It is very important that drug use it legalised. At the moment, anyone that uses an illegal drug is automatically considered a criminal, regardless of whether it is actually affecting their health or not.

Prohibition was originally intended to decrease drug use and limit the harm that drugs do to people. It has in fact increased drug use. There are also readily available statistics that show that countries with more liberal drug laws have lower drug use, particularly among young people - and surely that must be a GOOD thing. Cannabis use in The Netherlands is much lower than that in the UK.

Legalisation and regulation would mean that the black market would end almost instantly. Who would keep going to a dealer on the street if there was a legitimate way of getting a drug? Drugs would no longer be cut with other more dangerous substances to bulk out the weight. Billions of Pounds per year would be redirected from criminal gangs to legitimate tax-paying businesses. Users with addictions would be more likely to seek help if they knew that they wouldn't be arrested.

With the current laws, police indiscriminately target both responsible and problem drug users. And yes, as with alcohol, the majority of drug users are responsible - those that smoke a few cannabis cigarettes at the weekend in private are not having a negative impact on society.

The current government policy on drugs is as follows:

"Drugs WILL ruin your life. If you get caught with drugs, then regardless of whether the drug itself has had any negative impact on your life, we will arrest you, lock you up, give you a criminal record and ruin your future career prospects. THEREFORE ENSURING THAT DRUGS WILL RUIN YOUR LIFE!"

This policy HAS NOT WORKED - EVER. The only people to benefit from drug prohibition are the organised criminal gangs that make eye watering profits from it.

Indeed this is long overdue. Regulate it, tax it, legalise it!

Well as the thought police keep locking all the cannabis threads I'll have to post in here too.

Prohibition does not work it criminalises users and lines the pocket of criminals.

Legalise or decriminalise cannabis - I do not want to pay my taxes to persicute victims and vote for MP's that do not listen.

For most users the worst side-effect is getting caught.

The real reason it is illegal is the lobbying power of the alcohol, tobacco & drugs companies (about 50% of MP's have some connection to alcohol companies). Cannabis was legal until synthetic pain killers were patented & hemp was banned to protect the cotton industry.

Corperate money should not influence policy.

2 stars. I sympathise with the sentiment, but if chemists are selling quality controlled, pharmaceutical grade drugs with VAT added... won't the kids still go to the local drug dealer to get the cheap stuff tax free? So I'm dubious about the tax and regulation issue.
Also, I'm not sure if all illegal drugs should be legalised.

@Gav

"Prohibition was originally intended to decrease drug use and limit the harm that drugs do to people."

Modern drug war has it's roots firmly established in race hate and corporate greed, the public health policy and propaganda lies didn't come along until much later.

Do some internet searching for Harrison narcotics tax act and read about Harry J. Anslinger.

"Reefer makes darkies think they're as good as white men."

I don't agree that all drugs should be instantly decriminalized. Some obviously have a very profound effect on the user and society as well as being highly addictive, such as heroin. However, Carl (the creator of this request), has laid out many of the key issues as to why this current state of affairs cannot continue.

It is my opinion that the coalition government should commission a thorough scientific investigation of the impacts of drugs, physiologically, psychologically, and to society as a whole. Such a commission should also look at how other nations of handled their 'drug problem' such as The Netherlands and certain South American nations such as Mexico and Chile. Much has already been written regarding these countries new policies, and most of it is positive. It can be read online, often published by reputable scientific investigators and social analysts, not just amateur bloggers. Through the examination of the precedent set in other countries and scientific research that can be undertaken with the support of the government, we can decide which drugs are safe, and which, if any, should remain illegal.

I would hold the coalition to maintain higher standards than New Labour, and to listen to the advice of its scientists, rather than disregarding any findings that it does not approve of, or could be politically controversial.

The fiscal impacts of legalization could be enormous, resulting in entirely new agricultural and manufacturing industries to revitalize the economies of dilapidated areas, left shattered by the decline of Britain's manufacturing industry. Legalization could also generate considerable wealth for the government via taxation.

Police could spend more time on the streets, targeting criminals who are causing serious damage to society, instead of wasting their time chasing down teenagers who just want to relax in the comfort of their own homes with a drug, causing no trouble to anyone. Legalization also steals a considerable source of revenue for organized crime, hitting criminal gangs where they will feel it most- their wallets. I believe the film 'L4yer cake' summed it up best:

“Always remember that one day all this drug monkey business will be legal. They won't leave it to people like me... not when they finally figure out how much money is to be made - not millions, f###### billions. ... But this is now, so until prohibition ends make hay whilst the sun shines. “

Many drugs have medical impacts. The pain relieving and anxiety reducing effects of cannabis are well known, and it is an exceptionally good treatment for ADHD. It has been suggested that LSD and Ecstasy could provide the basis for clinical drugs to combat a range of mental illnesses from obsessive compulsive disorders to depression- without the unpleasant side effects and long residency time of drugs such as Prozac. Without legalization, we cannot pursue these avenues of research. It is insanity that we can use derivatives of opium and heroin in our medications, and yet drugs that pose far less of a risk remain illegal and untested.

 Then of course, there is the democratic argument. If people want legalization, the onus is on her Majesty's government to convince them otherwise. We elect our politicians to enact our will, that is their sworn duty. If legalization is our will as a nation, it must be brought forwards. The Government of course also has a responsibility to keep us safe, leading to the well known and oft recited axiom of striking a balance between freedom and security. However, as I have stated, the onus is on the government to convince its people that these drugs are not in our national interest. The only way to do this is with genuine, unbiased scientific research and investigation. If at the end of the day the numbers say that we are wrong, and drugs are too harmful, so be it. But at this time, our desire is for legalization, and many who do not support legalization are not opposed to it- they simply have no opinion as drugs hold no interest for them. I shall say it once more- it is the responsibility of the government to enact our will. If drugs are too dangerous, they must make us understand that and prove it to be so- not try to scare us with campaigns and baseless falsehoods.

Prohibition pushes people to legal highs, a market that under current law is virtually impossible to stamp out, as simple chemical changes alter the substance and make it unregulated- without removing its potency, and potential health risks. The fact people take this risk is further evidence of the strong public will to use recreational substances- but also demonstrates that people are willing to stay within the law to do so.

Beyond public safety, I have not heard any strong argument for the continued prohibition of all drugs. Heroin for example may be dangerous enough to warrant this treatment, but again we must have hard facts that say so. If these drugs are truly unsafe- prove it. And do so without resorting to hypocrisy. Two of the most common legal drugs- alcohol and tobacco- are a public menace. Alcohol has been behind most of the violent incidents that I have been subjected to in my life. I have yet to meet a person on any drug, including so called 'uppers' or 'stimms' who presented any threat to me, or my property. In my life I have known people who have used almost every drug imaginable, up to and including cocaine. I felt perfectly at ease with all of them, yet a drunk still instils me with considerable caution.

Tobacco kills thousands a year. Cannabis, ingested, or inhaled via a vaporiser presents very little health risk or damage to the body. It is generally accepted that it is impossible to overdose on Cannabis, as THC is so potent that it will render a person unconscious well before they reach lethal levels. Incidentally, the chemical that would kill a person in this hypothetical would be carbon monoxide, not THC. It would take around 800 'joints' in quick succession to achieve this. In contrast it is far from unheard of for young adults going on 'booze cruise' holidays, to drink themselves to death over the course of only a few days. LSD is one of the least harmful chemicals known to man.

Tobacco produces a very strong physical dependency in its users. Alcohol is also physically addictive. Cannabis, Ecstasy, LSD, 'Magic Mushrooms', and many other currently illegal drugs, these drugs that so much propaganda claim drive people to crime to feed their habit- have no physically addictive components. A person may develop a psychological dependency, but such a dependency can form on anything from a 'lucky charm' to another person.

Many drug related deaths are attributed to poor quality control in their manufacture. Through government legislation and scrutiny (which could be paid for by licensing and taxing the drug trade), we can ensure that all drugs are uncontaminated, of standard strength, and as safe as possible for human consumption.

Prohibition has failed. Since it's inception drugs have been reorganised, reclassified and renamed. Penalties have changed, campaigns have come and gone, sentences have passed and time has been served. And yet still, we have a 'drug problem'.

Prohibition has failed.

It has failed to protect the people of Britain, it has failed to account for civil liberty, it has failed addicts, it has failed honest hard working individuals and it has failed to tackle crime. It has failed countless people with painful diseases and disorders, it has failed the mentally ill and it has failed to assist the economy.

Prohibition has been worse than a failure. It has become an expensive a crutch, a bottomless pit into which we continue to throw our money and get nothing in return. In almost half a century, prohibition has achieved nothing. Tragically, it has actually done the opposite of what it was intended for- to make Britain better.

Ladies and gentlemen, Prohibition has failed. It is time to try something new.

I call on our new coalition government now, be bold, be great. Take the steps that no other government has dared. Challenge forty years of lies and hypocrisy, rise and tackle this issue and leave a mark that will be felt for the better through our economy, society and politics long after you have left the halls of power. This is your hour. This is your chance.

Thank you for your time.

-About the author.
I am a social smoker, I drink and also use cannabis. All my life I have either been employed or in full time education. Sometimes both. I have never claimed benefits and have never been convicted of any felony. I pay my taxes, both from my main job and the writing I do on the side. I hold 9 GCSE's, 1 A/S level, 3 A levels and am working towards a degree in Physical Sciences with the open university, while working full time in the private sector. I consider myself a model citizen, and drugs have never presented any threat to myself, my livelihood or my property.

My vote helped create the coalition.

Don't forget the last government went to great lengths to supress the politically motivated re-classification of cannabis to "B" which has only just come to light.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/[…]ow_foi_request_handled.html

Prohibition is useless. 1 in 10 use cannabis that's 10% of the population - what percentage of the population voted for YOU!

A law should be repealed if sufficient people say it is unjust, cannabis prohibition is unjust.

And yet, it's all too clear it's not going to happen.

For politicians any real discussion of the principal of the War on Drugs remains a "third rail issue", i.e. touch it and you're finished. Without doubt any senior politician that championed repeal and looked like achieving it would be in significant physical danger, as well as being comprehensively attacked by the red-tops. There are huge and wealthy interests behind the War on Drugs. Repeal would be catastrophic for organised crime, a disaster for the Afghan insurgents, and a huge loss of income and prestige for the American DEA and prisons industry.

Sometimes I toy with the idea that all the senior politicians know of some secret reason why the WOD must be maintained. Maybe the Mob are threatening London with a suitcase nuke or something.

FREE THE WEED!

I don't like the idea of the state knowing what my choice of poison is but even a scheme like the "No id, No sale" would be better than what we currently have (Pushers dont care how old you are so long as you have the cash).

Licensed coffeeshops are probably the best way forwards for cannabis and chemists for harder drugs.

"Legalisation of drugs could save UK £14bn, says study" - The Guardian. How about that for a means of tackling the deficit, eh??

http://www.guardian.co.uk/[…]/drugs-policy-legalisation-report

Why are we even discussing this? Governments have a track record of not listening to their people. Do you think the average citizen sees drug legalization & regulation as a good thing? No! They have been told drugs are bad and that drug users are evil.

The papers would have a field day if the government announced the legalization and regulation of drugs! Imagine the headlines, "Coke daddy Cameron". Despite the social experiment in Portugal demonstrating a success they'll still resort to fear tactics.

The government relies on the average citizen for votes, you think that they want to risk turning them off with radical ideas like legalizing and regulating drugs? No way, not when there is an adequate enough status quo to defend.

Despite the Coalition claiming to be listening i fear that lagalization won't ever happen... too many idiots who don't read deeper into societies issues.

@ DudeSpectre

This isn't a debate as to whether or not it's going to happen, more as to why it SHOULD happen.

Legalise it
Regulate it
Tax it

How hard can it be ?

There are so many things wrong with the idea of keeping drugs illegal, all of them have been established above me, although I wish to add my weight to those brave enough to fight for the right to choose how we lead our own lives.

Consumers will choose to use heavily taxed, regulated drugs rather than black market for all the safety and consistency it brings, which brings more money into the government, and retrieves large spending on fighting this ridiculour 'war'. This 'crime' has no distinct victim, making this law one that protects nobody, nullifying its purpose and its amazing upkeep expense.

By all means, restrict those drugs that really do what the propaganda says, ones that really do damage people rapidly, but I know that marijuana and psilocybin - without dangerous 'doping' by black market pushers, a non-issue with regulated manufacture - do not cause rapid permanent mental destruction, loss of bowel control or gradual liquefaction of a person's vital organs. These are ridiculous examples, but ones that have been pushed. Stop it, please.

Cameron would never let Clegg think about this, which is a shame because it is a really good idea.

(This written on a different thread)

By repealing the drug prohibition laws the government can control and regulate the distribution and sale of all recreational drugs. Accept the inevitability of recreational drug use and the failure of prohibition. Make drug use (including nicotine and alcohol) safer for everyone, both the user and society in general.

The logic for repealing drug prohibition laws is overwhelming and unassailable. Why are some drugs such as alcohol and nicotine perfectly legal whilst other less harmful drugs, such as cannabis and MDMA, illegal? It makes no sense why so much time, money and effort goes into criminalising people who seek alternative and safer forms of intoxication. It makes no sense why criminal gangs are given a near monopoly on one of the most lucrative industries in the world. It also makes no sense why two of the most toxic drugs, alcohol and nicotine, can be marketed and advertised to children.

Drug prohibition makes no sense. Our current form of selective drug prohibition makes even less sense. Educate people honestly about drugs and their various effects and then allow them to make their own decisions. Surely this is a basic and obvious human right.

 Our present drug prohibition laws are dangerous and ineffective. They steer people towards alcohol and nicotine, which are two of the most toxic and addictive drugs there are.

 

Millions of people who use less harmful drugs are criminalised and exposed to the inherent dangers of the illicit drug market.

People who use more harmful drugs such as heroin and crack cocaine can be better regulated and society can be better protected.

Repealing the drug prohibition laws will free the police to tackle crimes that have victims. Violent crime, theft, etc.

Proper regulation of the drug market will reduce our national debt through the taxation of drugs.

Prohibition has led to a sustained campaign of misinformation and distortion of facts. People should be taught about different drugs and their effects in a consistent and unbiased way.

Decriminalisation will open the way for genuine and invaluable research on our relationship with various drugs. We already know a vast amount more than we did in 1971 when the Misuse of Drugs Act was passed into law.

The freedom of intoxication is surely a basic human right. People always have and always will seek altered states of mind. They should be given the choice and education to do so as safely as possible.

The decriminalisation of drugs for personal use in Portugal, where persons found to be in possession of small quantities of drugs are sent to treatment centres instead of prison, seem to be yielding some very positive results, although it is early days.

The Portuguese approach certainly falls in line with Ken Clarke's recent comments on the prison system in this country.

Of course drugs should be legalised. The recreational drugs trade is estimated to be worth somewhere in the region of £6 billion a year, in the UK alone. Making drugs illegal does not stop people from buying or taking drugs because people will use drugs whether they're legal or not. By making drugs illegal all the government is doing is abrogating all control of the drugs trade and handing it over entirely to criminals. That is maddeningly stupid.

A basic law of ecomonics applies here - elasticity. Elasticity describes the relationship between supply and demand. If a product is elastic then demand will decline if supply declines. It's well understood that most products have some degree of elasticity with one exception - drugs. Drugs are almost totally inelastic, hence when supply goes down demand remains constant. The government and police cannot control demand by affecting the supply, yet they still peddle the same nonsense that drug busts and illegalising new drugs 'sends a message'.

The simple fact is that prohibition simply does not work. In addition, the laws are deeply hypocritical. Cigarettes kill around 130,000 people a year, 5 times as many as all the illegal drugs combined. Ecstasy kills around 40. For every one person that dies taking ecstasy, 3000 die from smoking. The idea that any 18 year old can walk into a shop and stock up on as many packs of fags as he or she likes, and the government and police are fine with this, but if the same person decides to take a couple of Es the same night then he or she deserves to be locked in a cell for possibly years is clearly absurd.

Einstein once defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result each time. Using that definition, you can look at the approach favoured by all the political parties towards drugs and call it insane. The only solution that makes any sense is controlled, regulated legalisation.

I suggest those with doubts/questions about cannabis and why it's illegal check out "The union" probably one of the better fact based documentries around.

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/[…]/

None of the "Reefer madness" hype here....

And all those saying it should be illegal because it's dangerous - just wait until the nanny state has either priced Fags or alcohol to the point you can't afford it or prohibited them as well and then I'll say "I warned you about prohibition".

Drug prohibition never has, and never will work. It is time to get over this fact, and implement a policy that actualy works. One which gives users control over supply and quality, decreases crime, and takes the trade out of the hands of terrorists, mafia gangsters, undercover police agencies, and other dodgy people who profit from the trade. One which respects peoples' right to live the way they wish - not dictated to us by the likes of Melanie Philips of the Daily Mail.

I completely agree. I believe that as Human beings we should be able to make our own choices.Prohibition just allows children easier access to the drugs and also for the drugs not to be sold in their pure form (as dealers are willing to put in any substance in order to make a higher profit.)
LEGALISE, REGULATE, EDUCATE.

Prohibition does not work, the vast majority of posters understand the sense of drug regulation rather than criminalisation....but we dont trust the politicians to change their stance, especially since every time someone tries to have the debate you get the right wing press screaming from their headlines...

One group of people who wouldn't want drugs legalised are the drug cartels themselves, since it provides them with their enormous wealth....so just like any wealthy group, I wonder how much "lobbying" (bribing) goes on to keep the status quo...

This proposal can be implemented under the current Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. And arguments here would carry more force the terminology was consistent with the Act, eg use 'controlled drugs' rather than illegal drugs. The fact is the Act regulates human behaviour and cannot make any drug illegal. Thus, it is human liberties that are trod on by the precautionary principle inherent in HM Government's current prohibitionist policy which dictates the manner in which the executive administers the Act.

And whilst the Act does not effectively control drugs, as they won't behave, it does provide a very smart mechanism by which a properly regulated drug commerce can manage both harms and benefits.

It's a shame that the Secretary of State and most who write on this topic are not aware, and will not make themselves aware, of the flexible possibility of ss7(1)-(2), 22(a)(i) and 31(1)(a) of the Act when read together.

For example, if by s31(1)(a) re 'General provisions as to regulations' the Secretary of State 'may make different provisions in relation to different controlled drugs, different classes of persons, different provisions of this Act or other different cases or circumstances' and by s7(1) re 'Authorisation of activities otherwise unlawful under foregoing provisions' the Secretary of State, may make 'provision as (s)he thinks fit for the purpose of making it lawful for persons to do things under which any of the following provisions of this Act, that is to say sections 4(1), 5(1) and 6(1), it would otherwise be unlawful for them to do', then i should be able to buy a clean unadulterated MDMA tablet or three from Boots for my weekend.

That is if the Secretary of State, the ACMD and the Parliament thought that would reduce or eliminate 'Ecstasy' fatalities and other 'harmful effects sufficient to constitute a social problem', s1(2), more effectively than a blanket prohibition of some but not all 'dangerous or otherwise harmful drugs'.

So we should be encouraging the people to see that the Act drafters foresaw the possibility of a completely and wisely regulated controlled drug commerce.
REGULATION AMNESTY TAXATION EDUCATION see drugequality.org

I disagree with the complete decriminalisation of drugs, which, whether legal or not, will still cause some adverse reactions in certain users; violence, unpredictable behaviour and even death. Why should the government condone substances that kill people? Of course alcohol and cigarettes can kill people too, that can be said about a lot of things, but is it really sensible to legalise the recreational use of what could be fine for one person, but kill another the first time they try it.

timeout4769, you mean like peanuts, aspirin, alcohol, etc etc.?

You seem, strangely, to imply that only the currently prohibited drugs have the faculty the kill some people but not others. It is not like that.

You can die eating peanuts, if you are allergic. You can also die after eating an aspirin if you have an ulcer; the same with alcohol.

The introduction of 24 hour drinking laws were supposed to reduce the amount of binge drinking taking place in the country. By the legalisation of drugs, we won't reduce the actual consumption of drugs - it'll rise.

There may be less crime depending on the method of regulation of drugs, but those who commit crime under the influence will be under the influence more!

Drugs such as Skunk, Cocaine, and Heroin all have serious side effects, whether they are physical, psychological, or sociological.

I do think we should repeal possession without intent to supply; by then it's too late to anything about it. But supply should remain illegal. There should also be greater access to help people kick the habit.

I'm not a great fan of regulating stuff (and especially handing control over to the government) but the illegal drug trade and its collateral damage has become such a behemoth that legalising at least some of this stuff has to be better.

Posted by wmann1 July 03, 2010 at 03:59AM
"Drugs such as Skunk, Cocaine, and Heroin all have serious side effects, whether they are physical, psychological, or sociological."

Yes they all do have side effects none of which should have as much effect in public. Most these drugs are not taken in public as they are illegal but when and if they are legalised, I somehow find it difficult to believe there will be fights in coffee shops because someone got too stoned.

The drug which renders its users most obtrusive, obnoxious and violent is already legal and on tap not far from your home. You can even pick up a bottle when your buying food in a supermarket.

Most prescription drugs as prescribed by doctors have more serious side effects than currently Illegal Drugs.

Legalising drugs which relax the user and promote a more relaxed attitude is something this country could do with.

>but if chemists are selling quality controlled, pharmaceutical grade
>drugs with VAT added... won't the kids still go to the local drug dealer
>to get the cheap stuff tax free?

No, because the illegal distribution network has very high overheads, guns to buy, bribes to pay, elaborate concealment and, above all, a degree of risk that demands high rewards.

They don't stand a chance of competing on price with the pharmaceutical giants and the tobacco industry unless the government is too greedy with the sin tax they'd undoubtedly impose.

And even then the drugs would be smuggled from legal supplies on the continent and be relatively safe as a result.

>I do think we should repeal possession without intent to supply; by
>then it's too late to anything about it. But supply should remain
>illegal.

That's even worse than the current situation. You'd still get lethal contaminants, drug funded violence, people stealing to fund the habit. Almost all of the harms of drugs are down to the absence of a clean, legal supply at reasonable prices.

>Cameron would never let Clegg think about this, which is a shame because
>it is a really good idea.

Actually I gather Cameron was rather more liberal on this issue while he was a mere MP. The closer politicians get to the centre of power, the less able they feel to genuinely debate the issue.

However the better papers seem to be creeping closer to the liberal position, even the Sun has been known to have the occasional pro-legalisation columnist. Possibly the Murdock son is more liberal than his father.

So it may eventually become possible for politicians to discuss the matter rationally.

Of course there's still the obstacle of the UN commitment and, above all, the Americans.

Well maybe if we offered Murdoch the first bid at the legal drug distribution franchise the Cons might be able to get the Sun/Times on board!!

This is a great idea. I agree

I totally agree. The only drug I have ever taken is alcohol, but I believe that anybody who wants to take any substance for whatever reason they have should be completely free to do so.

All we need to do is

A) make sure that just like alcohol use, others are not put in danger e.g. don't drive whilst high.

B) like alcohol, restrict sales to licensed outlets with a minimum age for purchasing.

C) supply at a reasonable price with appropriate taxation.

This would ensure purity and consistency, take pushers off the streets because it would not be worthwhile, and protect young persons from coming into possession of substances that are known to do harm.

@flightmaker

A) It is already a bannable offence to drive under the influence of drugs legal or illegal (you can be banned for driving under the influence of co-codamol if the police pull you over for driving erratically and found you have taken them).

B) No-one is suggesting a free for all, scientist agree that any substance alcohol/drugs that is abused durint the development phase of the brain cancasue significant psycological damage. I would almost consider the legal age for alcohol & drugs to be set at 21 (which would also help with the binge-drinking issues we have at weekends)

C) Cannabis cost about £10 per Gram were I live - if it was legal & taxed it would need to be around that price or the criminals will just under-cut the legitimate sources. (i.e. In Amsterdam prices range from 6-16 Euro's per gram depending on strength).

Personally I'd like to see it taxed on a sliding scale depending on how strong it was (like the different tax bandings for beer, wine & spirits).

The big winner here is the user. They wont be criminalised (ruining employment chances), they wont have the risk of dealing with criminals, they will be getting quality controlled drugs, they will be able to get help without the stigma of having done something illegal if they start having problems.
 

"As well as this, if hemp was grown en masse, we would have excellent, cheap alternatives to timber, paper and many fabrics. If marijuana was legalised in the UK and available in off licenses, tobacconists, bars etc. the effect on society would be largely positive in comparison to alcohol, say, which we all know can lower inhibitions and lead to violent behaviour. "

This is exactly why this law will never get passed. Can you image the massive multi national corparations that would lose their monopolies and profits. Big business has been behind this prohibition from its outset and has been supplying fudged scietific papers ever since. Investigate the history of the banning of cannabis on an international scale which was led by the big petro-chemical and pharmaceutical companies in America.

Legalising Cannabis would possibly be one of the best decisions any government could make in the modern era. Not only would it free up prisons, get rid of the national debt and make the country a generally nicer place to live, it would create a whole new drive towards sustainable living. Hemp, often confused as Cannabis by the authorities, is one of hardiest plants around it will grow in pretty much any environment and can be used for a multitude of things mentioned already, plus can be used to make petrol and oil. We can all live in hope that one day the voice of reason would descend and Governments will stop treating the populcae as dum children that need to be protected. As the worlds last great oracle, Bill hicks, once said "I'm an adult, don't protect me"

Will this link also be censored by adminstrators the same as some of the other sucessful drugs campaigns have been such as the 'Serious about crime? Then de-criminalise drugs!' link?

They then refer people to the legalise cannabis campaign which is totally different. One is legalise, one is decriminalise. One is cannabis, one is all drugs.

I wonder if they have already decided that decriminalising cannabis will be the token gesture and are therefore steering peoples support in that direction!

I'd still highlight the fact that both the UK Prime Minister and US President have openly admitted the use of cocaine in their younger years yet both head up governments that still continue to criminalise the users of drugs!

If Drugs Prohibition is not repealed then at the very least David Cameron should accept a criminal record for his use of illegal Class A drugs.

Or does he feel that it is still acceptable to give people cautions and convictions for drug use that appear on police checks for life screwing up peoples education, travel and careers?

Is he saying that the use of drugs is acceptable but if you are one of those users unfortunate enough to be caught by the police then you should be punished for life. Yet if you are not caught (as in Cameron’s case) you are not a criminal and should have no repercussions!! It is totally hypercritical nonsense!

President Obama could also quite easily have been yet another black man locked up in a US jail for illegal drug use.

Yes. Take the drug dealers out of the equation and crime will reduce dramatically. Tax on drugs can be used for education and rehab programmes. It is a win,win situation for all.

Don't forget the government are already the biggest drug dealers in the country.....

ALCOHOL - It would be a Class-A drug if classiffied by addictivness & the level of harm it causes the user & society.

Science based policy should over-rule media hysteria and political motivation.

The drugs policies should be set by a panel of independent scientific advisors taken from multiple areas of expertise.

I'll sit on it and help make policy decissions - for free!

Hopefully someone in government will actually read this website and see sense.

The lagalisng of drugs would also create a popular tourist spot similar to the netherlands.

Legalise, regulate and educate.... so simple.

Turning drug user's into criminal's. Is Criminal!.
They are patients who need help. what hey do not need is a 6ft by 6ft Jail cell.
Free the P.O.W's

Basically, prohibition can only result in more gun crime, theft, and over-crowded prisons. Locking up non-violent drug offenders results in murderers and rapists being released early.

Hopefully, that's put this topic in the sort of terms that Daily Fail readers will understand.

RandomComment is 100% right. For all those who say cannabis is not addictive, either you're ignorant of the facts or you're lying. I know quite a few people addicted to cannabis, most either failed their a year in university, or almost failed and are hence likely not to get a good degree, and this was caused directly by the time and money spent on weed and the effect on the person's behavior. If cannabis were legal it would cost a fraction of the current price, usage would go through the roof, and the problems it causes would also grow exponentially. I suspect most people who argue for legalising drugs are users who would like to get much cheaper drugs. To say people would always take drugs so let's make it legal is like saying people will always break the law, so let's abolish all laws.

@cp8759

Any substance can become a crutch if used to escape the reality of life, that doesn't make it addictive as such.

As far as I know, there is no independent research to indicate that Cannabis is addictive.

This topic is not about other laws so lets stick to the subject at hand.

The purpose of this thread is to evaluate the current legislation and on balance, people who know what they're talking about (including scientists) appear to be of the view that there is little to justify the maintenance of prohibition.

We can all speak of our own personal observations. Personally, I do not wish to do so as that is not a valid scientific method.

What is clear is that current policy does not work - if it did, there would be no demend for substances which are presently illegal.

Returning to those who use any substance as a crutch, its better to identify and support them then make them into criminals and possibly destory their lives with a criminal record.

In my opinion of course.

There are estimated to be over 2 million regular cannabis users in the UK.

That accounts for almost 3% of our population.

How many people have to make a choice before everyone else will stop looking down on them for that choice.. or sending them to jail for that choice.

I believe that future generations will look down on these discriminatory drugs laws with the disgust they are duly deserved, how many people have to suffer before this happens.

How many homosexuals were made to suffer from our countries discriminatory sexuality based laws purely for choosing to pursue a same sex relationship. I think I deserve to be able to enjoy and relax with a joint after a stressful day at my job, whilst my co-workers go down the pub and enjoy ethanol.

Agreed. Take the dealers out of the equation and crime would fall dramatically. Taxes on legal drug sales would fund education and rehab. It's a win,win situation.

The war on drugs is over; the drugs won. It's as daft as having a war on sex; drug taking has always been normal human behaviour.

It might just work, lets give it a go.

@ cp8759

People will always "misuse" drugs, whether they're legal or not. That's no reason to punish responsible users though.

And carl's right about cannabis NOT being addictive.

Government need to have a sensible informed discussion on this at the least.
Informed by experts not tabloid press.

leagalisation would get my vote. I simply don't believe using reactional drugs should be a crime.

Legalise ALL drugs:
Its simply hypocritical to have the likes of alcohol and tobacco legal and other drugs no properly controlled.
The gov should get over the "immoral earnings" attitude you supply thousands of alcoholics each day.

Secondary school certification in the schooling of drugs and their effects ( balanced views ) physically, mentally and sociologically should be as compulsory as maths and English.

Tax regulate and control harder drugs via outlets similar to pharmacies on doctors referral.

Educate though the media rather than scare and hype.

For gods sake lets free up the police to do better things... more Peace officers less policy enforcers.

legalise it. this has gone too far. the government automatically criminalises people that have NOTHING to do with crime - other than buying from the criminal gangs to which the government entrusts our safety. i'm sick of the government (and no-one else) treating me like a common criminal. i just have a smoke occasionally for christ's sake!.

@cp8759

"For all those who say cannabis is not addictive, either you're ignorant of the facts or you're lying."

Anything people enjoy can be addictive - Shopping, sex - even self harm. It's no reason to criminalise it.

"To say people would always take drugs so let's make it legal is like saying people will always break the law, so let's abolish all laws".

No, it's like saying that criminalising something that people have done for thousands of years, is widely prevalent in society, harms nobody else and is impossible to eradicate is a terrible, counter-productive idea.

If we end prohibition, all the money that currently goes to terrorists could go to doctors and clinics to help people overcome addiction.

To reduce drug consumption we need health warnings on the packages, outlets restrictions, and a total ban on marketing, advertising or promotional offers. That's what is currently working on tobacco, which is one of the most addictive drugs known to men.

Prohibition doesn’t work. It doesn’t reduce consumption, but it increases drugs dangers, and make terrorists hugely powerful, which increases crime and violence, putting everyone in great danger.

Alcohol is legally available and, of course, everyone uses that in a mature and sensible way. People don't get drunk in the streets, don't drink and drive, don't commit other crimes whilst under the influence. Drinkers always stay below the safe limit for them and enjoy a quiet drink without coming to the attention of the police or casualty departments. And we won't mention alcoholics and how happy their families are to have them in that state.

So, assuming that drug takers will meekly buy their drugs from a licensed chemist, and that they all behave in the responsible way that drinkers do, those of us who think drugs are illegal for a reason can rest easy then.

Unfortunately, I can see flaws in this idea.

(http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2010-06-15a.948.0) Baroness Meacher (Crossbench): "We in Britain spend £19 billion or so on the criminal justice system responding to drugs and drug-related crime, most of it a consequence of the criminalisation of drug use."

 Baroness Afshar (Crossbench): "I must admit that, although I do not drink, I certainly did smoke pot in the 1960s. It was great fun. I did not do anything to anybody when I was high; I danced a lot and listened to music. I lived to tell the tale, and I assure noble Lords that I am not a criminal. Criminalising drugs "otherises" a whole category of people, many of them young people with a bright future in front of them."

 Baroness Murphy (Crossbench): We can blame prohibition for much of the crime and violence around the illicit drug markets, for a large fraction of drug overdoses and drug-related illnesses and for corruption and the violation of civil liberties.

sylvia

"...they all behave in the responsible way that drinkers do, those of us who think drugs are illegal for a reason can rest easy then."

Although the following comment from Wikipedia are based on the US, the extreme negative effect of alcohol are very clear....

"Of the adult US population, at least 75% are drinkers; and about 6% of the total group are alcoholics. In groups which are almost 100% drinkers, the alcoholism rate is about 8%. Many reports state that about 73% of felonies are alcohol-related. One survey shows that in about 67% of child-beating cases, 41% of forcible rape cases, 80% of wife-battering, 72% of stabbings, and 83% of homicides, either the attacker or the victim or both had been drinking".

These figures speak for themselves....

I would rather be amidst a group of stoners than a group of alcohol drinkers. I've never felt threatened by people who had a toke.

I think this website contains all the most logical and intelligent Britons, a breath of fresh air.

Once upon a time it was easy for educators to say "(All) Scientists Say ..." and then give any message that scares people. No teenager would be bothered to go to a library to check on the truth. Now the truth is out there (and also half-truths) with easy access from search engines. Anyone can find a range of differing opinions that contradict the message-for-morons. People like to choose their opinion for themselves, and if you say they cannot choose for themselves, then you are transparently foolish.

You're entitled to your own opinions but you aren't entitled to your own facts.

Any measure you care to apply shows that prohibition has created more crime, harm and misery in society than the few drugs it wages a war against could ever do.

By all it's own stated goals and objectives it has failed spectacularly and achieved nothing positive despite the ever increasing financial and civil liberty costs we all have to pay whether we support the vindictive policy or not.

The arbitrary hypocrisy of the present drug laws and the way the misuse of drugs act is interpreted is scandalous.
People are robbed of their rights and turned into second class citizens for what they ingest into their own bodies.
19 Billions a year to fund this insane WAR ON YOUR OWN PEOPLE.

When generations look back at the middle classes who waged their moral crusade through prohibition they will be disgusted.
Prohibition is not based on science but based on rhetoric,hyperbole and lies.

Sound like plain old fascism to me.

I agree with this. The government shouldnt be allowed to tell us what we can and can't put in our own bodies. Why can't i legally smoke a joint and relax on my couch when some people are legally drinking themselves into a stupor.

Another angle on the problem, by the way, is that addiction has becomes a sort of Universal Excuse. If you're a "junkie" nobody expects you behave like a responsible member of society, either with regard to society in general or even within your circle of acquaintance.

I think this is a major reason for people choosing the junkie lifestyle (and I think many DO chose it).

If people take drugs and behave anti-socially the drugs should not even be considered in weighing their actions (and that includes alcohol, by far the most violence generating drug going).

@Sylvia

I assume you were being sarcastic about alcohol users, but you speak as though 'controlled' drugs aren't in our society presently. As if prohibition was repealed tomorrow there would be unbridled chaos...everybody would run out and get as many drugs as they could and snort/smoke/inject themselves stupid. Quick run for the hills!

These substances are already here and pretty much anyone who wants them can get them. If prohibition were lifted I honestly cannot see large swathes of the population rushing out to try heroin or crack etc. It hasn't happened in Portugal, who decriminalised possession of ALL 'controlled drugs in 2001, use of heroin has gone down, first age of use has gone up.

Can I ask you, why do you think would it happen here when the evidence says the opposite ?

Another thought I had that if the user has to be licenced and go through a test so they know what they are taking and the effects - this can be done by the nice home dealers (not the gangsters!) who would be out of business by scrapping prohibition.
Everybody wins.

@Soupdragon

Using heroin etc isn't an excuse in law now. It MAY be taken into account when sentencing (depending on the judge) but not as regards guilt.

Focus on differentiating between drug use and misuse, not 'illegal' or 'legal'.
It is my duty to break an unjust law, and I continue to do so without causing harm to others and fully contributing to society.
This issue seriously undermines respect for the law.

@ Gildas

Why should we need a licence to enjoy ourselves? Should this be applied to everything with potential pit-falls? People needing licences to cross the road, eat food, smoke cigarettes and drinking alcohol?
We're adults and we should be treated as such. We're capable of making informed decisions based on facts. Health officials can warn people about the potential hazards as a result of their actions, then let them choose for themselves.

>Using heroin etc isn't an excuse in law now.

I'm not talking about an excuse formally in law, I'm talking about an excuse at the moral level, and in particular to justify actions, or more often negligence, to oneself.

Best of all the Lib-dem manifesto promised a review of the drugs laws and legalisation/decriminalisation of Cannabis.

Who remembers the "Daily Fail" headlines pre-election saying there would be coffeeshops on every high street.

Well the Lib-dems have some power now so do it! - I voted for you so you would!

If it all goes wrong the Conservatives can always say "It was Nick's fault!".

Would people PLEASE stop saying things like "I don't and would never take drugs".
If you have ever had an alcoholic drink, taken paracetomol, drunk a cup of tea or coffee and so on, then you are a liar and a hypocrit. Please be specific as this is important.

'Drugs' play an important role in our lives, like it or not.

"Why should we need a licence to enjoy ourselves? Should this be applied to everything with potential pit-falls? People needing licences to cross the road, eat food, smoke cigarettes and drinking alcohol?"

We do need a licence to do dangerous things already.

I'm not talking about having to pass a test type thing (except a medical) .. just not have people that are taking stuff they know nothing about and don't know what to do when things go wrong.

Also thinking of ways this could actually happen as think there's very little chance they'd listen if you just said nothing should be controlled in any way.

@Gildas "We do need a licence to do dangerous things already."

errrm like horse riding, mountain climbing, kite surfing, skiing? No sir.
Legalisation wrests control for drugs back to the state, whereby there can be regulation regarding information, labelling, and education about various substances. It is up to adults to make informed choices, which generally, we do (given correct and reliable information - please see the decline in smoking since the war, and even following the control of smoking in public places)

I agree with this.

Whilst at risk of hijacking the thread I would like people to understand an important point, that:

Prohibition does not equate to control. Control of lucrative and dangerous markets is relinquished to criminal profiteers.

Prohibition equals zero control, contrary to what many politicians preversely believe. The only control that prohibition exercises is the punative criminal measures dealt out to users who (may) need help rather than criminal sanctions which exacerbate their individual problems.

@OllyMolly
Well yes, not all dangerous things need licences!
You mention education and that's all I'm suggesting is that a way is found so we're sure people are educated as it might not just be themselves that they harm if they don't know the effects of their particular drug of choice... but also you'd feel safer knowing that people know how to tell something is going wrong and what to do if it does.
If you're half way up a mountain or on top of a horse then you get the sense of danger that you need to be trained first... with drugs, too many just say "what harm can it do?" then OD.

@Gildas
I understand your point, and legalisation does not equate to a free-for-all, rather it means that people are able to make informed choices within a framework of access that reflects the relative harms and addictiveness of different drugs.
Heroin (diamorphine) would obviously not be sold in Tesco, but could potentially follow a prescription model whereby a number of licenses are able to distribute and administer in a safe and supportive environment.
Ecstasy (far less harmful and addictive) would require less stringent frameworks, rather simply a license for distribution may be necessary, yet strict controls would be established regarding sales to individuals, drug quality and abundant information and support.
We really should talk about specific drugs, rather than just a vague discussion about 'all currently illegal' drugs.

Finally, you say "... with drugs, too many just say "what harm can it do? The OD"
This would not be the case in a post-prohibition world - people would know the harm that it can do, and the likelyhood of 'OD'-ing would be hugely reduced given the controls on strength of the product. Perversely, prohibition has increased the strength of many drugs - see the rise of stronger strains of cannabis and the shift from coca leaf (once used in everything from pile creams to coca cola) to rock and powdered cocaine, where the risk of 'OD' is far greater.

I don't agree with the license thing. All you should need is proof of age. there should be clear warnings on the packets and advice should be given at point of sale.

It is up to the individual to decide if they can cope with a substance and be responsible for their own actions - none of this alcohol/drugs/videogames made me do it rubbish.

BTW : you don't need a license to drink alcohol and thousands of people kill themselves with that each year. There have been no recorded deaths due to overdosing on Cannabis.

From a personal point of view anyone taking hard drugs needs to be very carefull, there is plenty of evidence for which ones are addictive and these should be the ones more tightly controlled (note I use controlled not prohibited).

@penrhos
Yes, but you need a license to sell alcohol. This is important because it gives the state leverage to revoke the license to outlets that sell to u18s, or breach in other ways. Without such it would be a free for all. Whilst we shouldn't need a license to take a particular drug because it might beb 'dangerous' (drink some meths if you want to), we should absolutely need licenses to distribute drugs.

The end of alcohol prohibition in 1933 led to immediate decreases in murders and robberies. The repeal of drugs prohibition could have similar effects.

 Once those involved in the narcotics trade have a legal method of settling business disputes, the number of murders and violent crime could drop.

When alcohol use was outlawed during prohibition, it gave rise to gang warfare and spurred the formation of some of the most well known criminals of the era, among them the infamous Al Capone. Similarly, drug dealers today resolve their disputes through violence and intimidation, something which legal drug vendors do not do.

Police officers are more likely to be corrupted in a system where bribe money is so available. Police corruption due to drugs is widespread. Drug money has been called a major source of income for terrorist organizations.

The repeal of drug prohibition would remove this central source of support for terrorism.

Prohibition might be considered “the greatest moral experiment of our time”, as F.D.Roosevelt stated in 1932. But banishing drugs from human life is, in fact, a war against self-induced euphoria, and also a war against chemistry and human invention.

Such an enterprise was born in the USA, and has been exported by this country at the very same rhythm in which it became the world's superpower.

The effect of this American crusade is identical to the general effect of crusades, and especially of the crusade against witchcraft: aggravating to unheard extremes a hypothetical evil, justifiying the destruction and plundering of countless persons, promoting the ill-gotten wealth of corrupt inquisitors, and creating a prosperous black market for all the forbidden items -which in the seventeenth century were sorcerer's concoctions, and today are heroin, cocaine, crack, etc.

I am so glad that everyone on this site who wants illegal drugs legalised is a responsible, non-addicted user of these illegal substances.

And I am sure you will guarantee that, when the law is changed and previously illegal drugs are available for sale at the local chemist all addicts will become responsible and gainfully employed so they have the money to buy them (plus VAT) and will never come to the notice of the police or casualty departments again.

Oh look, I see a battalion of piggies flying by and all without the help of drugs or alcohol.

@Sylvia

I perfectly understand your point: currently, there are addicts who fund their addiction with crime, and they're not going to disappear magically once we repeal prohibition. Of course, you are right and I do not think anyone is suggesting that such a magical act will take place.

What we are proposing is a way to reduce the social and individual harms related to drugs, even though we are aware that those harms will not be magically "repealed" together with prohibition. A reduction of drug related harms is not the same as its complete elimination.

It's important to note that prohibition tends to exacerbate all the harms related to drug (ie. addiction, crime, loss of lives etc). Therefore, by repealing prohibition, we can eliminate such harm exacerbation, although not the harms themselves.

Providing a medical prescription for pharmaceutical heroin (diamorphine) to heroin addicts has been seen in some countries as a way of solving the ‘heroin problem’ with potential benefits to the individual addict and to society. Studies have proven the treatment to greatly improve the social and health situation of patients, while reducing costs incurred by delinquency, trials, incarceration and health interventions.]

In Switzerland heroin assisted treatment is fully a part of the national health program. There are some 38 centers throughout the country at which dependent persons can receive heroin maintenance. The Swiss heroin maintenance program is generally regarded as a success and a valuable component of that country's overall approach to managing drug use in a harm decreasing manner. In a 2008 national referendum a majority of 68% voted in favor of continuing the program.

The Netherlands is another country which has had several successful studies of medically supervised heroin maintenance. Results of two major clinical studies involving 547 heroin treatment patients are available from the CCBH website.

Another major study on heroin maintenance was carried out in Germany from 2002 until 2005 with over 1000 long-term heroin addicts receiving either oral methadone or i.v. diamorphine at treatment-centers in seven participating cities. The study proved diamorphine to be significantly more effective than methadone in keeping patients in treatment and in improving their health and social situation. Many participants were able to find employment, some even started a family after years of homelessness and delinquency. Since then, treatment had been continued in the cities that participated in the pilot study, until heroin maintenance was permanently included into the national health system in May, 2009.
In Britain we have had a system of heroin maintenance since the 1920s. It was de-emphasized somewhat during the 1960s-1980s as a result of the U.S. led "war on drugs". However, in recent years the British are again moving toward heroin maintenance as a legitimate component of their National Health Service. This is because evidence is clear that methadone maintenance is not the answer for all opioid addicts and that heroin is a viable maintenance drug which has shown equal or better rates of success in terms of assisting long-term users establish stable, crime-free lives.

Similar results of crime reduction and life quality improvement of users have been observed with different substances on different countries (cannabis in the Netherlands, coca leaf in Peru and Bolivia, ayahuasca in Brazil, etc).

On the other hand, prohibition, by making drugs impure, very expensive and sold by criminals, clearly fails to protect users and non-user of the prohibited substances. Moreover when it doesn't even reduce its street supply, which grows year after year.

 One obvious result of prohibition regarding crime, among others, is a growing output of crimes and illiterate youngsters, who use the illicit substances partly as an adulthood initiation rite, and partly as an alibi that suggests declaring oneself irresponsible, unfree, victim of a chemical devil.

Whilst I am in support of repealing the prohibition of all drugs, I have been directed here because a moderator has closed down another topic which called for those caught with small amounts of drugs to not be given criminal records. I would like to make the point that contrary to what this moderator seems to think, and end to prohibition and an end to criminal records for those in possession of small amounts are two entirely different things. For example, it is possible that somebody may believe in the prohibition of drugs but disagree that those caught in possession of small amounts should face a criminal record. The other thread should be re-opened and allowed to run - they are two separate ideas.

With specific reference to criminal records for those caught in possession of small amounts....it is grossly unfair, ruins people's careers and travel opportunities and must be stopped.

@richardcalhoun July 01, 2010 at 11:04AM

"Drug addicts must be treated by the NHS"
"Drug addicts must be allowed to obtain their drugs from the NHS"

All agreed, but please let us not get confused between drug use and drug addiction. Cannabis, for example, is a completely different subject, when it comes to addiction, to that of heroin.

We need a culture change when it comes to all things 'drug'.
Each drug needs to be dealt with on its' own merit. I don't think anyone, other than the hard drug user (or the dealer), would condone a free market in all drugs.

Where common use and harm reduction go hand in hand, is where we need to look at a culture change.

Cannabis is both common and harmless. Legalise and regulate.
Cocaine is fairly common but harmful in degrees dependent on method and frequency of use. Regulate to reduce harm and educate to reduce use
Heroin - quite common in many corners of society but not as harmful as one might imagine. It is the method of use that causes much of the harm, and the quality of the 'cut'. Regulate to reduce harm, and implement a program to understand what drives people to descend into that level of self-harm.

Education is not simply a schooling mechanism, but it takes place throughout our lives. Advertising takes advantage of this. We need honest, true to ourselves, up front and constructive education when it comes to drug policy, use and the harm associated with it.

Let us move away from drug and addiction in the same sentence.

All currently illegal drugs sgould be legalised and regulated. Together with currently legal drugs, alcohol and nicotine, they should also be taxed.The differecne this would make to law enforcement, and society generally would be immense.Issues surrounding addiction should be viewed in the light of personal responsibility.Personally, I dont believ anyone was ever forced into becoming an addict. If they became addicted in a legal framework, and they refuse or evade all efforts to treat the addiction,the NHS need not strive officiously to keep them alive.

DanielCarter. Thank you for the detailed info you have provided.

I am well aware that prohibition makes anything more attractive to the rebellious.

However I do not find comfort in the fact that various countries are 'managing' addiction by continuing to provide the relevant drug. This suggests to a simple soul like me that curing addiction is damn nigh impossible. Otherwise why incur the continuing cost to the health service of long term treatment. This seems to be making the best of a thoroughly undesirable situation.

If drugs lose their illegal status it stands to reason that more people will try them. I cannot see that this will reduce the number who become addicted, the law of averages suggests otherwise.

The health service is groaning under the weight of treating illnesses which are not self-inflicted, the last thing it needs is an increase in those that are. We already have obesity, smoking-related and drink-related illhealth in this category.

Also, seeing jimbrown's comments, if getting a criminal record ruins careers and travel plans why do users break the law? Might it be that none of these substances are as benign as reformers would like to think.

 

Abraham Lincoln: “Prohibition... goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes.”

Mark Twain: "Prohibition only drives drunkenness behind doors and into dark places and does not cure or even diminish it."

"Also, seeing jimbrown's comments, if getting a criminal record ruins careers and travel plans why do users break the law? "

The very simple answer to your question Sylvia is because prohibition does not work! :)

sylvia,

There was a very interesting and informative piece in the Financial Times last year, called "Why it's time to end the war on drugs". If you're interested, you can read up on it here:
http://www.ft.com/[…]/486fb0d8-7ca3-11de-a7bf-00144feabdc0.html

A brilliant point, very well made. I have added my support in my article.

http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/[…]/drug-law-re-assessment

"The health service is groaning under the weight of treating illnesses which are not self-inflicted, the last thing it needs is an increase in those that are. "

People go to hospital now with drug problems and often they are caused by the prohibition ie. from badly cut drugs or crime.
Legalising will see tax revenue gained which can be put into providing more local hospital services for everyone.

"if getting a criminal record ruins careers and travel plans why do users break the law?"
Because they want to, perhaps?
If they made coffee illegal one day, would you stop drinking it (pretend you do if you don't!) just because they said so, or would you perhaps keep drinking and hope no-one will notice?
You can't go through life under the command of everyone or you will have no life, so people take the gamble of not getting caught.
It may be a risk worth taking, but it shouldn't have to be.

I have never met a drug user yet who profited from being locked up (usually where drugs are available anyway), imagine if we locked up all the people who get drunk (as daft as it sounds the americans tried it) . We should be helping addicts not forcing them to steal so they can buy their local drug baron another flash car. If the profit was taken out of drugs then the criminal element would leave it alone and there wouldnt be the underground promotion of drugs and I believe new drug use would fall dramatically. The only thing holding this back is the newspapers who hounded the last government about mephadrine untill they panicked and banned it, it turned out that those kids died of methadone so maybe someone cant spell but we shouldnt legislate because were frightened of fleet st

Advantages of the present laws on drugs: 1) the Government can be seen to be tough on a serious problem. 2)... I'll come back to this later. Can't think of any more at the moment.

Advantages of legalizing drugs: 1) enormous boost to tax revenue; 2) enormous savings in police expenditure; 3) large saving in NHS budget; 4) large savings for HM Revenue & Customs.

>I don't think anyone, other than the hard drug user (or the dealer),
>would condone a free market in all drugs.

Actually plenty of people who don't take hard drugs argue for a free market as far as adults are concerned (including me). The one class of people who would absolutely be against it would be the drug dealers, who wouldn't last five minutes in a free market.

I don't like what the moderators are doing here. Legalization and decriminalization is two different things, two different debates.

I agree Trulsey, and as i pointed out to them, yet again, this thread is not just for cannabis, its for all drugs.

That is a very different proposition.

To their credit, they have reopened this "Idea" very promptly on the two occasions they've closed it down (admittedly, only from me prompting them).

We need to get the word out there this exists and persuade as many people as possible to consider the arguement in a valid, mature fashion.

For too long this has been the preserve of the media and government - scare stories, rhetoric and downright politicking.

I would urge any readers to pass the link for this on to forums, facebook and twitter where appropriate.

Lets spread the word and not take no for an answer!

This is our country, we elected this government to bring about radical change and we expect them to deliver!

It's no good without home grow. Any change to drug policy which doesn't remove the perverse restriction on growing cannabis is a worthless reform.

A fair point McD.

Where would you stand on being able to grow it only for your own consumption? One of the big selling points is eliminating the black market and all that comes with it.

Any thoughts?

@ carl

"Where would you stand on being able to grow it only for your own consumption? One of the big selling points is eliminating the black market and all that comes with it.

Any thoughts?"

In the Netherlands, they allow people to grow 4 plants for their own consumption, although it is rarely enforced. I knew people with 5 or 6 plants on the go. A similar system could be adopted over here

I'd love Cannabis to be legalised - then I could try some of the "Souviners" all the good seedbanks sell.

I would like to see "Soft" drugs legalised and sold in licensed premises - it would be good for the users, good for the economy and good for reducing drug related crime (no demand = no drug gangs).

However I do have reservations over "harder" drugs, yes they should be legal, but how to regulate them is a bit trickier.

Also it would make more sense to treat addicts with the drug they are addicted to rather than a synthetic version and the current system prevents that.

@stevebrewell

Interesting, not opposed to the idea.. so lets think about it a bit. We allow people to grow a small amount of Cannabis for their own consumption. Its illegal to grow more than a predefined amount but instead of using it as a stick to beat people, is used to deal with those who may be problematic or operate in the black market.

I can see that working.

What does Holland do about production of other drugs? Is that outlawed?

For those of you worried about decriminalization without the right to grow. It is probably for the best if we kept the comments minimal and relevant. This thread is calling for REPEAL of the drug laws. It is different than decriminalization. It is to revoke i.e. withdraw the law, hence no more restrictions than tobacco or alcohol. And it might make it difficult for this debate to be taken seriously if there are a million comments going back and forth on whether one wants to grow, how many plants, what they do in Holland etc. Stick to the issue guys, get your friends and their friends onto it and let's rate this tread with 5 stars.
It is not an excuse to be social and comment, this is not facebook.
Let's get to 10.000 ratings!

@carl

I've found this from 2001:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/[…]/dolin1-e.htm
Makes for a pretty interesting read.

@mikneo

As long as the comments are constructive and relevant; it'll add to the debate. Also, the more comments we have; the higher up the list this topic stays.

Absolutely. Disregarding cocaine and heroin (and other highly addictive and dangerous drugs) which need to be looked at carefully, many drugs such as LSD, DMT, mushrooms, cannabis etc. have almost no proven threats to human health.
In many cases illegality is the highest risk, with the introduction of police brutality, harsh prison sentences and a crime ridden black market.
Without prohibition, the risk associated with drugs is dramatically reduced.
These laws are just a way of criminalising pleasure seekers and keeping police busy.

The more harmful a drug is the more urgent it is that it should be brought under control and be regulated effectively; not left to the black market.

With regards to 'grow your own' restrictions. I wouldn't have thought these would be necessary. If you take alcohol as an example, I am perfectly at liberty to brew my own beer, however I find it much easier to go to the (taxed, licensed and regulated) market. I doubt the situation would be much different with cannabis, and the 'hobbyist' factor would still exist.
Anyway, you wouldn't want to drink the beer that I had tried to brew in my youth...

Look to Holland and Portugal and maybe introduce something similar, but only repeal the cannabis law. Make it availible in coffee shops/home and no where else. This would work and make alot of money in tax and make alot of people happier.

The most lucid exposition of this view I have read so far on Your Freedom, well done Carl.

Very well said.

Drug laws are the most dicriminatory pieces of legislation left in an otherwise mostly fair and just country.
The Government must take notice and reform the drug laws to give people back their individual liberties.

At an absolute minimum the indivudual should be able to produce their own substances for their own personal recreational and/or spiritual use.

Legalising the entire trade would benefit society by stopping the black market in drugs. Most harm to society attributed to drugs is casued the this black market, not the substances themselves.

It's so simple. The freedom to take drugs should be the same as the freedom to eat cream cakes. It's a travesty of justice that people who enjoy one form of intoxication over another are treated as criminals.

Prohibition needlessly puts people at risk. Prohibition fuels criminal gangs. Prohibition costs billions. Prohibition criminalises millions of people. Prohibition promotes alcoholism. Prohibition denies basic human rights. It's time that common sense prevailed and that the outdated and illogical Misuse of Drugs act is repealed.

It's becoming very clear through this website that repealing our ridiculous drug laws is something that a huge majority of people want to see happen.

Let's see if this website's for real or just a cosmetic pretense at democracy.

@stevebrewell

fair enough :)
good point, i didn't think of that.
And actually i realise it is good to bring
all concerns onto the table.

Completely support this. Legal sale of drugs in licensed outlets would reduce the strain on the police, courts and prison, raise tax revenues, lower the power of organised crime gangs and reduce the need for some women to go into prostitution. Decriminalisation of drugs would also encourage addicts/victims to seek medical/therapeutic help without fear of persecution. A total win-win situation. Couple this with signing contracts with opium growers in Afghanistan to produce medical morphine (of which there is a world shortage) and thus give them legal means to develop their own country and lower the influence of the Taliban.

But what will the gangs shooting each other up in London going to trade in now? Stolen garden gnomes?

Legalise it. Tax it. The. End.

See Portugal; they abolished their drug laws in 2001:

http://www.time.com/[…]/0,8599,1893946,00.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/[…]/how_portugal_treats_drug_addic.html

Certainly hasn't been the disaster which was predicted.

Legalise it. Tax it. The. End.

See Portugal; they abolished their drug laws in 2001:

http://www.time.com/[…]/0,8599,1893946,00.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/[…]/how_portugal_treats_drug_addic.html

Certainly hasn't been the disaster which was predicted.

Agreed tcrs!
Legalisation and taxation. Simple.
It's time we stop kidding ourselves.

Also it is time we drew a clear line between User and Addict.
The age old (now a cliche) example of the fact that even though alcohol is legal not everybody's an alcoholic needs to be taken seriously.
Unfortunately the root of this ridiculous law lies across the atlantic.
Just because the US are self righteous bigots who would gladly imprison (or put to death) anyone who does not agree with their puritanical beliefs doesn't mean the rest of us have to follow.

This would be a good start to that libertarian utopia.

Couldnt agree more! look at the case with Magic Mushrooms! Used for thousands of years by mankind, Zero deaths through poisoning, a few deaths through misuse and accidents compares to the 12,000 odd from alcohol in 2005, and banned!
same goes for all the others! People should be imprisoned because those pose a threat to members of society not themselves!

It's pretty annoying that this topic won't appear on the "Highest rated ideas" because someone voted against it of the (currently) 622 votes so it's topped by topics where about 3 people voted, but all in favour.

I fully agree, and this is a prime example of us being granted the 'freedom' we deserve, if people choose to take substances then they should be free to make the decision themselves rather be treated as a criminal for a totally victimless 'crime'.

I fully agree, and this is a prime example of us being granted the 'freedom' we deserve, if people choose to take substances then they should be free to make the decision themselves rather be treated as a criminal for a totally victimless 'crime'.

@carl

“Where would you stand on being able to grow it only for your own consumption? One of the big selling points is eliminating the black market and all that comes with it.”

Quite honestly, as an MS patient of more than twenty years standing whose quality of life is unbearable without cannabis, I’m morally outraged by any suggestion that I should be subject to any restriction whatsoever. I’ve actually used cannabis since 1977 without realising until fairly recently that I’d been self-medicating in much the same way as a cat will eat grass when it needs to settle its stomach and/or vomit.

I love growing cannabis. Not just because of the relief and consequently improved quality of life it provides me, but simply because I love growing the plant. I love watching it grow and looking after it.

It’s five plants allowed in NL, by the way - not four, although I shouldn’t think anyone pays any attention to the number of plants. The only thing that’s of real interest to the police there is whether cultivation is for commercial or private purposes and even then they’d not be much interested in commercial cultivation if they didn’t feel it was going to be sold for export. But that’s beside the point.

I think of it like masturbation: what the hell right does anyone else have to tell me when I can have a wank, what sort of. or how many wanks I can have? Most people seem to have pretty much given up on telling others who they should have sex with - male of female, black or white... No-one’s going to get involved. Why the hell should they be any more interested in what I do in the privacy of my own home when it is of absolutely no consequence to anyone else whatsoever? Because I grow my own cannabis (and NEVER sell or give a gram of it to anyone; which is actually a terrible shame, because it’s made me into something of a recluse as a result. I’d love to be able to share my joy with others, but, like Byron’s it would seem to be a love that dares not.) It’s not as if I’ve seduced an eighteen year old boy. There’s no-one else involved.

So, to answer your question more directly, Carl, I couldn’t care less which hoops are set on fire for the jumping through; I will always grow as much cannabis as I need. If there were legal limits set, I would try to stay within them, but - now that we all know what a farce the law is - I wouldn’t pay any attention to it if it wasn’t convenient. Any attempt by others to climb into my bed and find out which hand I wank with, or whether or not I swap hands and when I do so, and other such private details would be met by me with about the same understanding and appreciation as someone trying to find out how much cannabis I use. You want to make it your business, then you marry me. And don’t think I’ll take just anyone on. (You’d have to clear it with my wife, for a start.)

In all seriousness, though, this prohibition nonsense is really just an extension of slavery. A couple of decades after the US Civil War, it seems to me, the ruling classes felt uneasy about having so many plebes so close to them. They needed to make themselves feel more special and secure by finding something they could make others do. Prohibition seemed the answer. It didn’t work with alcohol - the monkey drug - but they could cling to a sense of moral superiority with regard to other Assassins of Youth. However you look at it, making someone do something they don’t want to do is bullying. Prohibiting people from doing something without any real reason is the same thing - bullying. Bullying supported by the law is slavery.

It’s the morality that lead to the defeat of the US/UN/UK Axis in the War on Drugs. God sees everything.

Yes

this is exactly what i wanted to hear

I think this article might be of great interest to anyone reading this thread.

http://www.time.com/[…]/0,8599,1893946,00.html

I totally agree and have been saying this for a looong time! Legalising all illegal drugs is long overdue. Most, if not all, drug-related crime is caused by the cost of acquiring it and the gang wars over territories, etc.

Legalising and taxing them would ensure good quality drugs were on the market, dramatically reduce violent crime and burglaries (which would save police forces, courts and prisons an absolute furtune) and lead to a more relaxed society.

Everyone knows the potential effects of the drugs they are taking, isn't it time people were treated with the respect they deserve? We should be free to make the choices ourselves and not have Big Nanny State dictating what we should and should not do. If people want to take drugs, they will anyway and they do, banning them has not stopped anything.

Set up licenced outlets for all drugs.
Tax them accordingly, ensuring the price dramatically undercuts street prices.
Allow people to grow their own cannabis plants
Start making good use of hemp

Stop wasting what little money IS in the government kitty on needlessly pursuing drug users and putting them through the so-called criminal justice system. If you criminalise people for these minor things you only put them at further disadvantage in getting a job, participating usefully in society and further deepen the social problems that exist.

It is time for common sense to prevail, not warped righteousness.

Allow people to make their own choices and show that this government really is different from any previous one!

Yes and lets give them to infants instead of milk..
Get real...

Perhaps someone has already touched on this, but there are dozens of lengthy comments here and it would take an age to read all of them.
Anyway, one thing that has always bothered me is that there are people out there who proclaim that they are against recreational drug use who will then go out to the pub and enjoy a pint. Just think for a moment: if we had discovered cannabis before we had discovered alcohol then cannabis could have well ended up as the country's recreational drug of choice, and this entire repeal could have been about legalising alcohol, or maybe even something else such as ecstasy. The only reason everyone thinks that cannabis (or any other drug shown to be less harmful) is 'bad' is because that is how we are educated to think. It is someone else's biased opinion that is ingrained into our heads from a young age. Until we can accept this and think critically for ourselves about precisely what makes cannabis a 'bad drug', we will be stuck with this problem.

This issue is the single most important issue in society currently. It simply cannot and should not be ignored. It is nearly 40 years since this law was introduced; in which time debate about ALL drug use has been stifled, lives have been ruined, families torn apart and misinformation perpetuated.
Think of a world without prohibition; one where gang-related violence is curtailed to an extraordinary extent, where street prostitution no longer exists, where prisons are no longer full to bursting with non-violent criminals whose only crime is to fund their own (and others) addictions. These people need help, we need help from our government. Where individuals can make free, informed choices about their behaviour based upon science and evidence, and a sense of personal responsibility. Where respect for the law is fully restored. Where police time is spent chasing violent crime and disorder. Where resources are directed to education and treatment, not punishment. Where usage of 'illegal' drugs is no longer 'cool'. Where alcohol is rightfully put in it's place as a drug far more powerful, damaging and adddictive than we wish to admit.
The repeal of prohibition is no panacea for creating a society with a sense of true personal responsibility, but it would certainly be one of the biggest steps made in generations. It would not remove the damage that drugs cause, but it would remove all the damage that prohibition causes, and we all know these.

Governments who have repeatedly ignored this issue, lacking the courage or will to see the facts before them.
Clegg and Cameron both have expressed support for a more rational, science-based approach to drug policy and now is the time to show true courage to end this disgraceful situation, one which we as a society sit back and tacitly accept.

As invited, I am being demanding about my rights. This is the elephant in the room. I DEMAND that we should not compromise, we should not shy away from the truth, we should not compromise our liberty and we should not continue to wage a hateful war on our own people, and the crime of being human.

Actually, no - that’s not quite right: it wasn’t the morality that lead to the defeat; to say so would be to suggest God waved a magic wand and made it better (or worse, depending on your position). It’s a bit more practical than that. It might even make for bad science. It was the farce that lead to the defeat. Because of the obvious stupidity and intransigent pig-headedness of the law in slowly-slowly (Nearly half a century!) coming to terms with its inability to curb cannabis use, anarchy took over where the law was unable to perform. That's what lead to its defeat. And thank God!

The prohibition doesn't work. It makes criminals of people who may need help and feeds the coffers of drug lords.

The prohibition doesn't work. It makes criminals of people who may need help and feeds the coffers of drug lords.

NEVER, these drugs are EVIL and destroy lives. More do not indulge than do. Why damage your life only a moron will do this. Medical use excepted

The logic of prohibition is appealing, but flawed. It assumes that the law can eradicate drug consumption. It cannot. Drugs are here and will stay here until fashion, not the law, says otherwise.

We should abandon the fantasy of a drug-free world and start taking responsibility for regulation. If you really want to control who grows drugs, who produces drugs, who sells them and for how much, who can take them, and how much they pay for them, create a framework that is logical, accountable and adjustable.

Consider the declining popularity of tobacco smoking. High taxation, credible education programmes and effective treatment programmes work – a legal ban on smoking would not. Why should other drugs be treated any differently?

"Evil, moron, fashion, regulation, tax, control' What an abundance of fear, ignorance and greed this silly prohibition game has created.

You say, 'Medical use excepted'. Presumably, you're thinking the US model of quasi-re-legalisation for medical purposes is viable and defensible. Here's a bit of news from the other side of the world:

http://cannazine.co.uk/cann[…]+co%2FRksW+%28Canna+Zine%29

"Police Drug Investigation Branch Inspector John De Candia said people were foolishly putting their and their families' lives at risk by growing cannabis at home.

""I don't know how people sleep at night when they're wondering what every noise, creak or movement outside is and wondering when they're going to be the victim of a home invasion," he said.

""Those people who have their children sleeping next to a room where they're growing cannabis, with all the dangers that go with that, well, I don't know how they sleep at all.""

I've got four young kids and I think about this for many, many long, long hours every night while monitoring the growroom and waiting for fatigue to overtake anxiety during the early hours of the morning. At this time of year, with the growroom in mothballs and the plants thriving away in local fields, I sometimes get to sleep before midnight (!) and have time to spend venting my fury at how the law has failed (been defeated) and placed my family and I in such a precariously dangerous situation.

It's time to come to terms with the loss of face from losing the War and get on with making it alright now. True, having destroyed so many lives, the law will take many, many years to regain the trust of so many hundreds of thousands of lives it's destroyed. Many people will never trust it again. (With good reason.) Personally, I believe even politicians can sometimes be intelligent, brave and altruistic enough to do the right thing, despite their seemingly infinite greed and short-sightedness. ('Give me, give me, give me; quick, while I'm in power: more gratuities from Big Pharma to stall reform!') Everyone knows it's inevitable now.

There's also the question of what to do with the thousands and thousands who have been unjustifiably criminalised and dispossessed. They're going to want some of their money back, aren't they?: 'OK, if it's legal now and you've accepted that it really should never have been illegal in the first place, then can I have some of the money you took off of me back, please? OK, I'll forget about the time spent in prison, but I want a portion of the asset forfeiture returned so I can get on and continue my life with some of the capital I'd acquired before being wrongly convicted.' It must be a tough one for those on the wrong side of the law, i.e. the lawmakers. No amount of taxation will be able to compensate it.

You should have thought about this before you went along with it, shouldn't you? 'Just say 'No'!' and Reagan's brilliant asset forfeiture ideas... How could you have been stupid enough to go along with it?! I suppose the smug arrogance and greed must simply have overwhelmed any attempts at a sensible approach. It must have seemed as safe as houses - a problem for future politicians - money in the bank. As far as I can see, you deserve everything you get now and, oh boy, are you going to get it! The longer you drag it out in your increasingly preposterous attempts to justify, ameliorate and distance yourselves from some of the damage you've done, the worse it will be. It's true, you know: God really does see everything; call it karma or what goes round comes round, but there's no getting away from it. Just stop fighting it, accept it and get on with your job by making it better. So you lost - get over it!

I completely agree with this proposal (I submitted a similar one of my own, but have now been advised to contribute to this larger strand). Current drugs policy repeats all the mistakes of the Prohibition era, thus actually fuelling crime and all its related costs of every kind. Come on, politicians - show some real vision at last, and reform this in the same way as the Prohibition laws were eventually overturned (with enormously positive consequences, albeit too late to undo all the damage - another reason not to wait any longer!).

I agree wholeheartedly.

I agree wholeheartedly.

I notice how we pragmatists are presenting a very valid argument here, yet, amusingly, the prohibitionists can only come up with:

"Posted by elo2joe July 06, 2010 at 11:49PM
Yes and lets give them to infants instead of milk..
Get real..."
&
"Posted by albyefield July 07, 2010 at 10:49AM
NEVER, these drugs are EVIL and destroy lives. More do not indulge than do. Why damage your life only a moron will do this. Medical use excepted"

How have these ridiculous laws been allowed to stand for so long when the argument for them is so weak?

Totally agree with the comment... People shouldn't be criminalised for enjoying themselves. Most people who drink (which is one of the most harmful drugs) are perfectly responsible and so are those who like to take recreational drugs... So time for all to be treated the same!

The savings from stopping the policing and revenue from taxation is also worthwhile.

But most of all... treat us like the adults we are!

There is an easy way to test the water with legalisation without incurring the wrath of the Daily Fail & other tabloids.

Legalise cannabis for medical reasons, you get a prescription from your doctor, apply for a licence to grow a limited number of plants at home from the government (like big businesses can), pay an administration fee to cover the cost and get issued a "Medical Cannabis growers/users licence".

You then notify your local Police and they visit you to ensure you are sticking to the license and you are growing safely & securely (we don't want sick people being beaten up by criminals for their medical cannabis).

For this to work the Possession laws would have to be scrapped - there is no point in medical cannabis if you cannot legally possess it.

While this scheme was running the government could investigate the results and if positive create a plan for full legalisation using results of the "medical trial".

This principle could then be applied to higher risk drugs drugs - legalise for medical use then legalise & regulate for general use.

This is proven scheme for cannabis in the US, which has the most draconian drugs laws in the free world & does not go against any UN or EU resolutions over drugs.

The key is people that choose to use drugs should not be criminalised for using drugs. People should only be criminalised for criminal activities like trafficing/selling drugs or commiting actual crimes like theft, violence.

I agree with the idea. Such measures would have to be rolled out in relation to societies ability to simultaneously reverse a trend and prevent the sudden rush of liberty being the cause of social unrest. Therefore, we should begin immediately with the legalisation of cannabis and sit on that for a while so that we move to a more rational, reasonable and liberal society but within the constraints of our ability to do so. Let's not forget that the mass of the general public have been brainwashed into servitude for time immemorial. It will take some time before that level of indoctrination wares off sufficiently so that the general public is able to cope with freedoms that are offered. The last thing we want is for "them" to say, "I told you so..." even though it would be their influence that caused the imbalance.

It’s easy to associate mental health problems with drugs. A lot of people who suffer with, or have suffered from mental health problems, will probably have used some sort of mind-altering substance at some point in their lives.

Some people have a habit of escaping from their problems. Whether that is drugs (including alcohol), food, religion or even computer games, they are attracted to anything that helps them to escape. I have used cannabis and a number of other substances to escape mine. That’s not the fault of the drugs, but more the way I’ve used them.

Fortunately, I have a very supportive family. They’ve helped me through my problems and I now know I use cannabis responsibly. I don’t ever feel I need to use it, but there are lots of times I want to use it. I feel I’m fully in control of my desires to use cannabis now and I’m certainly much happier than I was. At no point did I ever intend to quit using it.

I tried to get help through the NHS but I was told I’d have to admit I was an addict. I didn’t really want that on my record, and I knew I wasn’t addicted so I had to go for private treatment. If we could see an end to drug prohibition: people like me could get the treatment they need without ruining future job prospects.

One more thing:

If I'd used alcohol, and NOT cannabis: I'd be dead. So cannabis saved my life!

@Rationalist
I disagree.. it has to be done all in one go.

Otherwise you'd be creating bad press for each level who would point to how it's been a disaster (even when it hasn't) and they'd end up chickening out and prohibiting it again.

It also would prevent creation of a ladder where people decide to try the one that's just become legal.

Get it all done in the great repeal bill and there'll be so much the whinging types to deal with that they'll have to pick their battles and so couldn't get united behind one thing they want to keep to make our lives worse... perhaps we should say that all drugs should all be given out for free to people who don't even want them - that way when complaints are made we can concede to the point where they are just licensed and they'll think they've won :)

"More do not indulge than do."

More drink alcohol than not, therefore I suggest a ban on not drinking beer (especially the kids)

More people don't have an iPhone than do... can we prohibit those too?

Excellent.

The message is: Legalise, Control, Tax.

If the ridiculous prohibition of cannabis finally ended I think I may be able to start liking the world, and this horrible place they call London. I think I'm not the only one. It would also instantly restore my hope that politicians can be forces for good in the world. Please, I beg of you have the courage to do the right thing and stop ruining lives daily for the sake of appeasing people who don't understand the situation.

I hope someone reads this, and understands I speak with complete conviction and sincerity when I say that a government which had the guts to make what would be initially a controversial decision for the sake of reason, and what truly makes sense, would be remembered as bringers of change and celebrated throughout the ages as a government that put an end to over 70 years of the needless suffering of the sick. Call it a disease if you must, but substance abuse is NOT a crime in and of itself.

In a world where economy is the new religion, it makes no sense that the government is protecting the black market by refusing to acknowledge its existence. And all the nonsense spoken by the minister of justice in the house of lords on the 15th of June ('we do not intent to legalise recreational use') show just how short sighted politicians can be or whether they're pocketing 'contributions' from the gangsters to keep the black market prices high as the sky..
Black marketeers aka gangsters prey on the young and the weak and it is them that end up taking the fall when some police man is 'simply doing his job'. The young are being taken advantage of with spiked drinks and all sorts of other tricks that could be stopped completely (not minimised) if they could enjoy themselves in safe environments with their friends. When i say the young i do not mean 16 years olds i mean 18+.

The below article gives an excellent overview of the hopelessness felt by today's police force regarding the 'war on drugs'. Even if Former Chief Constable Tom Lloyd does make the ridiculous misguided assumption that many drug users are 'often the victim of emotional, physical and sexual abuse'!!!!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/[…]/drugs-british-police

The only time I've ever been able to quit smoking tobacco was when I bought an ounce of cannabis and replaced it with that. Once I ran out after a week though, I started on the nasty tobacco stuff again :(

Cannabis can be used as a replacement therapy drug for nicotine, I'm the living proof! If I had a constant supply of it I'd be "clean" after a month, and wouldn't suffer _any_ withdrawel from nicotine.

There are many scientific and medical benefits to the use of cannabis. For example suffers of Parkinson’s disease, Anxiety disorders, Depression, Repression of nightmares, the list is very long. Prescription drugs have many side effects sometimes worse then the symptoms you have from the illness. However it seems that there are very little side effects to cannabis, much less so then alcohol. A calmer happier society, with less violence.
A policed and well governed and taxed system of distributing to the public's demand for this natural herb is one of the most lucrative money making ventures for any government to tap into. It seems an absolute violation of people’s civil liberties to keep this wonderful natural god given herb from its followers.
David Cameron and Nick Clegg would both gain a great deal from it, why do you think Labour got in, in the first place because millions of cannabis users voted for them when Tony Blair said he would legalise it, most of whom had never voted before up and down the country.
There is real revenue from willing tax payers for the government to embrace this opportunity. Not only that there is a massive tourist market for our country to welcome and embrace and a government that understands not only its own countries but the worlds cannabis culture. Ther e is a huge opportunity for income from overseas as well as at home which we all know would also generate jobs and income, Farmed and grown in this country.
 It has been proven to work in the Netherlands and its working in Portugal, however I do not believe we should legalize all drugs. It works in California under state law.
The herb itself is even mentioned in the bible and it is part of Rastafarian Religion. I do think that the overall rate of illness would decrease, the over rate of alcoholism would decrease, teenage pregnancy would decrease. There are more reasons to legalise cannabis then not, I fear that one reason they don't is that they fear public houses would be less frequented because everybody would be too chilled out at home relaxing after a hard days work, and able to sleep soundly and have a clear head in the morning.
Basically if we Legalise and tax Cannabis sensibly keep to the prices the public know, and Cancel Trident and this country's debt problem would be solved and we would be a calmer more peaceful, home grown, greener, less violent society, less crime filled, more welcoming and a safer and more pleasant place to live, more money to put into the countries coffers and I think that is something that most of the population would like to see.

Just from the amount of current comments, it would be rude of the coalition not to legalise and reform the laws on cannabis.

I can not believe that this is a freedom bored, yet they closed down this idea and link and comments twice - thank god they saw the sense to admitt to themselves that this is a freedom board and we have the right to our freedom.

Are the Best Drugs always illegal? Let Uncle Ken have his head and your children will not be sniffing cheap plant fertiliser but drinking organic coca leaf tea and discussing which plantations are the best, and the prison population will drop in half. Unfortunately the distance generated between the law and people of good will by prohibition is going to take at least a generation to heal - so start now. Just because criminals take drugs does not mean people who take drugs should be made into criminals.
Most people who take drugs are not criminals, nor inadequate losers, but are found in the most creative and productive spheres of society. Creating an economic incentive to promote drug consumption(prohibition)is a government subsidy of the value of billions to those who currently control this trade and operate in the black economy, one can only conclude that politicians are either stupid or deeply corrupted by the drug-dealers to maintain this situation, especially in the case of economic liberals - this restraint of trade is no longer sustainable as people are asked to make tremendous sacrifices to pay for the self-indulgent stupidity of those who thought they could control the markets.

Or will prohibition be maintained as just another stick to beat us with.

Making drug illegal does not work. All it does is create a black market which has an incentive to encourage as many addicts as possible. Making drugs illegal has merely meant that the government has lost control of the distribution of drugs. If you accept that some drugs e.g. (Cannabis, Ecstasy) will have to become as easily available as tobacco the you can concentrate on controlling the more dangerous ones such as Heroin, Crack etc by making them available on prescription but keeping the reselling of these drugs of these drugs illegal.
By making drugs legal we will reduce crime. This will release funds that can be used to treat addiction rather than policing it.
Education is the best way of stopping and controlling drug use not the law.
Legalisation will not solve the problem of drugs but will make it to a purely social one and not a criminal one. In time we should see a reduction in use at least of the worse drugs.

4.7/5.0 with 677 votes so far.

Anyone in the dictator lounge taking notice yet?

I fully support this idea and believe it could be one of the best acts a politician could take. It's the elephant in the room, we all know the laws aren't working so please, find it in yourselves to make the difficult decision!

@ McD July 07, 2010 at 11:48AM
Excellent post my man - pure excellent

@ albyefield July 07, 2010 at 10:49AM
"NEVER, these drugs are EVIL and destroy lives. More do not indulge than do. Why damage your life only a moron will do this. Medical use excepted"

Are you able to provide any categorical evidence to support your theory above? It sounds like something you'd read in the Daily Mail or some such like rag, and, I'd add, punctuated to the same standard!

Lives are destroyed because people get hurt having to deal with gang-type cultures to obtain a small amount of weed. The law forces us into this position.

More abstain than use (I paraphrase). Errrr - yes. Is that not true of most things? Do we only allow things to be legal that are used or needed by the majority? I like chocolate, but I know many that don't. Please keep the discussion real.

So, in conclusion, I see that you're saying that anything that is evil and destroys lives can be used for medical purposes. I really think you need to explore your notions a little more. Maybe expand the mind a little? I have a suggestion.....but the law doesn't allow me to suggest it here in fear of being accused of 'pushing drugs'.

The present prohibition has appalling consequences in funding dangerous criminals and terrorists in places like Afghanistan and Mexico, as well as in inner cities of UK & USA. Legalise everything but with the strongest possible health warnings against using the more harmful drugs. Publish honest risk and addiction ratings of everything including tobacco and alcohol and legal medicines. Mildly encourage a return to pre-skunk varieties of cannabis.

http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/[…]/cannabis.aspx

"On the other hand, recent research has suggested that it can be a major cause of psychotic illnesses in those who are genetically vulnerable."

Why should we pander to 3% of the population who use cannabis?

This linked article only refers to cannabis which I accept can be of medical use in the control of pain and the treatment of Multiple Sclerosis but in my opinion should only be used under medical supervision where any adverse effects can be monitored. Morphine is regularly used for pain control in hospitals but I do not believe it, or any of its derivatives, should be made available to the general public.

A search for the effects and damage caused by other drugs can easily be performed for anyone interested in so doing.

It is my belief that draconian punishments for dealers are called for together with proper treatment for those unfortunates addicted to drugs. Not liberalisation of the existing drug laws
I myself smoked tobacco for fifty years and only stopped due to the prohibitive price, I could no longer afford to smoke but didn’t resort to crime to fund my addiction to a habit which when I started was indulged in by the majority of the population. We were even given a duty free allowance for tobacco when serving overseas.
An example of destroyed lives are those forced into prostitution and crime to fund their habit.

Agree totally. Aside from the practical implications of locking up otherwise law abiding citizens,(http://transform-drugs.blog[…]t-blueprint-for-better.html) prohibition is fundamentally illiberal.
 If one accepts that preventing possible harm is a valid justification for keeping drugs illegal, then one must permit the state to punish those who drink, smoke, and even partake in other risky pursuits like mountain climbing, diving etc.
 But it should not be the job of government to prohibit activities simply because many people find them unpalatable. Let adults make their choices and take responsibility themselves. By all means put extra tax on drugs to pay for healthcare costs, as with alcohol and tobacco. Give people the facts, not scaremongering, to make informed choices.
 Let us not fall into the trap of thinking everyone will go out and become drug addicts. Ask yourself why you don't take heroin - is it because you are afraid of the law, or because you know it's stupid? And remember, most drug users are normal people living normal lives, with jobs, families etc. Criminalising drugs criminalises many fine citizens.
 Lets see this coalition government do something really brave and progressive! Decriminalise and sensibly regulate drugs!

@albyefield
you seem to be both for and against this thing, but could you explain what you mean by "Why should we pander to 3% of the population who use cannabis?"

Why would letting others do something (which would reduce you chance of being victim of crime and also save you money if you don't use) be pandering to them?
Does it offend you, what other people do even in private?

@ albyefield July 08, 2010 at 02:06PM
http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/[…]/cannabis.aspx

"On the other hand, recent research has suggested that it can be a major cause of psychotic illnesses in those who are genetically vulnerable."

OK, that statement answers all that's gone before. No-one advocating the decriminalisation of cannabis would deny that statement, for one simple reason; the last 6 words, "in those who are genetically vulnerable"

I see that you obtained that gem from the Royal College of Psychiatrists, as proven by the weblink given, and the fact that it was quoted from the 1st paragraph, under the heading 'about this leaflet'.

Did you read the entire 'leaflet'? I suggest you do, but in doing so, please read it in context. Little soundbytes are not constructive.

Further down the page is another statement; "Street cannabis can come in a wide variety of strengths, so it is often not possible to judge exactly what is being used in any one particular session.".

There is our point. We don't want street cannabis, we want legally available, packaged, taxed and safe-to-use cannabis with full accountability thrown in.

Much of the anti-cannabis points are shared by many pro-cannabis users. Much of the anti-cannabis rhetoric is aimed at using cannabis in youth. It mentions the development of the brain, and how that 'can' be hampered by the THC content and various strengths thereof. It also says, the same 'could' be said for alcohol. Note use of the words 'can' and 'could' in both of those statements. All must be read, in context.

Under the heading, 'work', it says "There is no evidence that cannabis causes specific health hazards" as well as going on to say that people are more likely to leave work early. This reasoning was used in WWII to close the pubs in the afternoon so as to encourage people back to work to support the war effort. It took until the 1980s to repeal that one, but we did it through reasoning and adult debate.

Much of the statistical evidence in the paper quoted is concluded around adolescence and the developing brain in young people. You need to read the paper in context.

As for addiction to cannabis - it's not, in general, considered addictive, but it all depends on usage / dosage. That again, is another issue we are trying to address by having a legally available, properly regulated, state taxed supply. We would know the strength as it would be printed on the pack, just like the ABV or Tar/mg scale on alcohol / nicotine.

Your quoted source of information has something on that too. It says, "If you decide to give up cannabis, it may be no more difficult than giving up cigarettes". Note - it MAY be no more difficult. It all depends on use / dose.

I've known alcoholics that have had their lives shortened as well as the quality of that life reduced, all down to the misuse of alcohol. One such case was my partner of 11 years. I've never come across anyone addicted to cannabis, neither know of anyone who has died as a direct result of it. Shame - if my late partner had liked a smoke as much as vodka, he might still be alive today.

@albyefield

You took tobacco , a highly dangerous regulated drug for over 50 years?
Now you want to punish people for their personal choices?
Even if they are functional valuable members of society? which 80% of non violent cannabis users are.

Im sorry but your post comes across as the usual ill-informed rhetoric and hyperbole we always hear.

A perfect example is the starting quote
"On the other hand, recent research has SUGGESTED that it can be a major cause of psychotic illnesses in those who are genetically vulnerable."

I can suggest a lot of things, it doesn't make them true.

And in fact this quote is complete spin.
The fact is the data says that only 2-4 percent of cannabis smokers are at risk from schizophrenia or psychosis.
That means that 96% of users can take cannabis safely.
And do so , i might add.

So where are the wards full of these burnt out mentally damaged cannabis users?

Well , actually they do not exist
The rate of Schizophrenia and psychosis has remained the same for the last 50 years.
Between 2 & 4 percent of the entire populous.

The university of Keele study found that

" that between 1996 and 2005 there had been significant reductions in the incidence and prevalence of schizophrenia. From 2000 onwards there were also significant reductions in the prevalence of psychoses.

    The authors say this data is “not consistent with the hypothesis that increasing cannabis use in earlier decades is associated with increasing schizophrenia or psychoses from the mid-1990s onwards.” "

Simple one this: decriminalise, licence shops to sell, and tax. All drugs, every single one.

Not only will this save us money, but it will also get us a lot of income. It will also stop criminal gangs who fund themselves through the sale of illegal drugs.

People will always, ALWAYS find a way to get drugs, we may as well make it as safe for them as possible, and the extra tax revenue would be very useful.

It isn't clear if more people will start using drugs, but I suspect if this is the case it will be very small. People argue that NHS drugs support clinic costs will rise and this may or may not be true, but can be funded out of the tax raised.

At some point in time drugs WILL be legalised - it's happened in a number of countries and eventually will happen in the UK, so we may as well stop losing money fighting it.

Simple one this: decriminalise, licence shops to sell, and tax. All drugs, every single one.

Not only will this save us money, but it will also get us a lot of income. It will also stop criminal gangs who fund themselves through the sale of illegal drugs.

People will always, ALWAYS find a way to get drugs, we may as well make it as safe for them as possible, and the extra tax revenue would be very useful.

It isn't clear if more people will start using drugs, but I suspect if this is the case it will be very small. People argue that NHS drugs support clinic costs will rise and this may or may not be true, but can be funded out of the tax raised.

At some point in time drugs WILL be legalised - it's happened in a number of countries and eventually will happen in the UK, so we may as well stop losing money fighting it.

Simple one this: decriminalise, licence shops to sell, and tax. All drugs, every single one.

Not only will this save us money, but it will also get us a lot of income. It will also stop criminal gangs who fund themselves through the sale of illegal drugs.

People will always, ALWAYS find a way to get drugs, we may as well make it as safe for them as possible, and the extra tax revenue would be very useful.

It isn't clear if more people will start using drugs, but I suspect if this is the case it will be very small. People argue that NHS drugs support clinic costs will rise and this may or may not be true, but can be funded out of the tax raised.

At some point in time drugs WILL be legalised - it's happened in a number of countries and eventually will happen in the UK, so we may as well stop losing money fighting it.

Simple one this: decriminalise, licence shops to sell, and tax. All drugs, every single one.

Not only will this save us money, but it will also get us a lot of income. It will also stop criminal gangs who fund themselves through the sale of illegal drugs.

People will always, ALWAYS find a way to get drugs, we may as well make it as safe for them as possible, and the extra tax revenue would be very useful.

It isn't clear if more people will start using drugs, but I suspect if this is the case it will be very small. People argue that NHS drugs support clinic costs will rise and this may or may not be true, but can be funded out of the tax raised.

At some point in time drugs WILL be legalised - it's happened in a number of countries and eventually will happen in the UK, so we may as well stop losing money fighting it.

This is such a popular topic that there should definitely be a cost-benefit analysis of the law surrounding prohibition of illegal drugs. There is plenty of evidence out there one way and another; let the science inform the policy!

@jalien

That is one of the big problems - There has been no published audit of the effectivness of prohibition. the LCA requested information and it was blocked by Labour as "not in the public interest"

I want to see genuine figures from the government that show how much they have spent on prohibition, education & "Talk to frank" against what return they have recieved to see if the war on drugs is cost effective.

All I see is they arrest some dealers & commercial growers and within days there is more poor quality weed being sold on street corners by yobs carrying knives.

Then I see some poor guy growing a few plants for personal use having his door smashed in by a van full of Police thugs who ramsack his house and give him a criminal record that will ruin any chance of employment.

Respect the Police, Respect the Law - Only once the law is just.

Do Tory MPs' not remember the Poll tax riots - I do, it's a good job cannabis users are too chilled to riot over such an unjust law.

reforming the drug laws is a massive task. once you get over the major hurdle of covincing them that its the right thing to do, it all has to be set up right.

strangely enough, I think the alcohol model would be a pretty good start. but before that, we have to categorise the drugs, and more importantly the users. the first category would be medical use. this would range from using cannabis or a derived product for active treatment of ailments to maintenace of addictions such as heroin, cocaine and speed etc, through to the counselling and mental health fields with MDMA. Obviously, once these substances are free from the legal clamp, companies will invest in research, and the range of medical benefits will increase. in all of these above cases the patients should not be charged for the use of these drugs.

the second category is enjoyment, relaxation, etc. in this category, the different substances have to be treated differently from each other, just as different types of alcohol are treated. in the uk, it is illegal to sell any type of alcohol without some form of license. this is highly commendable. it is also illegal to produce some alcohol without a license, namely spirits. it is also illegal to manufacture any alcohol for general sale without a license. it is however legal to home brew a few pints of beer or a barrel of elderflower wine as long as you dont sell it and its for your own use.

any user of heroin or cocaine or speed (and their derivatives) who isnt getting his /her medication from the medical category will be able to obtain these drugs at the chemist for a fee.

lsd and mdma and other party / mind expanding substances should also be available from the chemist, over the counter for a fee.

the above substances should be deemed to be the spirits of the drug world, ie the production and distribution is highly controlled and taxed

cannabis should be treated like beer and wine. the commercial stuff which would be sold in on and off licensed premises would be subject to all the same laws of production and distribution, but if a person grows a few plants for his own personal use then that is the same as brewing your own beer.

one of the overwhelming arguments against cannabis has been that is is a gateway drug. if it is sold in places where that is the only product for sale, the chances of it leading to harder drugs are reduced.

mdma is another substance that might be suitable for being sold in cannabis shops, but to keep the laws clear and unmuddled its best to keep it with the rest of them. we dont really want diy mdma chemistry kits on ebay (or do we?)

90 % of acquisition crime is drug related. mostly this is committed by around 300,000 people in the uk. most if not all of the proceeds of these crimes go to feeding habits. if at one fell swoop, all of the addicts were able to go to their gp and get the real thing, at the right strength, for free, why would they bother going out to steal. believe me, the last thing a junkie wants to do when he wakes up hurting in the morning is to go out and steal stuff. all he wants is to sort himself out and go on with his day. indeed, many addicts who were being maintained correctly could and would (and do already) enter the workplace and become more productive to society as a whole.

nobody likes the idea of addicts injecting themselves willy nilly, but with prohibition, we are condemning them all to a life of pergatory. surely if we take away the need to steal to maintain their habit, they will stop stealing.

It is totally possible for the uk to produce all the drugs that are required. indeed we could grow everything bar coca, which we could import as coca leaves and then refine. as a nation we should be able to make massive amounts of money. firstly the producers are going to make a profit (they always do) the government are going to tax it (they always do). the people involved in the manufacture and supply will all have jobs (no benefits going out, PAYE coming in). the offshoot industries would benefit: transportation and packaging, paraphernalia manufacturers, grow shops. all of these bunisses pay tax. And heres the biggie; all of the money for the drugs that are imported into the uk, currently goes out of the uk in the empty drug containers. this money never reaches our financial system, when all of this money is changing hands over the counter, it enters our financial system at so many levels, from the wages to the guy in the shop to the duty the govt. put on it.

the companies who get involved with the government in the manufacture of drugs must be special partnerships with particular laws of incorporation. existing companies can form these partnerships, but they must be separate entities. the amount of money to be made is huge, and the profits have to be skewed in favour of the government. There must be deals that all medical use drugs are provided free to the nhs. the outlets (chemists, off & on licensed premises) would be subject to the normal commercial restrictions. ie no monopolies or price fixing, planning laws etc.

as much as i believe that alcohol is a much more dangerous and societively expensive drug than of the currently controlled substances, the current legislation that deals with its manufacture and supply is pretty good.

the wider implications for society are intriguing as well. if we de- criminalise a large section of society, the police are able to concentrate on dealing with real crime. it may even be the case that detection goes up significantly whilst budget comes down. also we have to factor in all those prison places that cost £40,000 a year. not only are the users not going to be in jail, most of the burglars, car thieves and shoplifters wont be there either, because they are getting their medecine from the nhs and not stealing. loads of extra money for where its needed most, schools and hospitals.

there will always be those that say (rightly) that we dont want to encourage and allow kids to take drugs. well there are already kids taking drugs. most kids agree that its easier to get drugs than it is to get alcohol. if drugs were treated like the alcohol model, it should be less easy for kids to get drugs if they were legally available to adults. wether this is right, i have my doubts, but what i do know is that society already has a system in place to deal with underage use of alcohol. it wouldnt be a great stretch to widen it to include drugs as well. indeed there would be more money available to ensure these schemes run better than they currently do.

before all of this however, what we need is an honest and open debate. science needs to take priority over 'fake morality' and the government should start to listen to what is accepted as a real argument by almost everyone but themselves.

Here is a drug value for money report that the government didnt release for ages because:

"The release of the report entails the risk of Transform, or other supporters of legalisation, using information from the report to criticise the Government’s drug policy, or to support their call for the legalisation of drugs and the introduction of a regulated system of supply"

http://www.homeoffice.gov.u[…]money_report_07?view=Binary

Here is also a partial review of a review on the classification system. Should soon be the full review now the government has given up fighting against its release.

http://www.drugequality.org/[…]/2006-05_Review_Partial.pdf

Also, in the only cost-benefit analysis that i know about, it says that we could save up to around 14bn.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/[…]/drugs-policy-legalisation-report

http://www.tdpf.org.uk/TransformCBApaper.pdf

"The conclusion is that regulating the drugs market is a dramatically more cost-effective policy than prohibition and that moving from prohibition to regulated drugs markets in England and Wales would provide a net saving to taxpayers, victims of crime, communities, the criminal justice system and drug users of somewhere within the range of, for the four scenarios, £13.9bn, £10.8bn, £7.7bn, £4.6bn."

With the 4.6bn saving with the scenario that drug use increasing by 100%.

Some of the other most important factors from the report are:

"the prohibition of drugs is the root cause of almost all drug-related acquisitive crime, and that this crime constitutes the majority of drug-related harms and costs to society"

This report only used heroin and cocaine because of limitations in available data. So even if heroin and cocaine use was to increase by 100%, this report suggests even given a large room for error, economically, the country would still benefit.

If the Govt, or more specifically certain moralistic individuals within it, choose to totally ignore these calls for reform then it will be a very sad day indeed. And what a missed opportunity to make a truly profound difference to our society; one which I don't think can be underestimated. Those who begin dismantling the 'war on drugs' or the 'war on certain people choosing certain drugs' or even the 'war on being a human' I am certain will make their name in history for all the right reasons.
Sure, it will require courage, significant work, it will require significant initial state intervention, it will mean resisting powerful lobby groups, but by god will it be worth it.
Regardless, no 'Freedom Bill' would be complete unless it addresses the criminalisation of individuals whose only crime is to choose to relax with a particular drug that is not one sanctioned by the state, for no other reason than historical and cultural precedents.

I WOULD LIKE TO ASK MR CLEGG TO STOP IGNORING PEOPLE'S DEMANDS ON LEGALIZING DRUGS.WE BRITISH PEOPLE OF THE UNITED KINGDOM ASK YOU MR CLEGG TO STOP ABUSING PEOPLES LIBERTIES.LEGALIZE IT

I will keep this post fairly short as I don't feel the need to champion the case for science-based drug policy any more. This is the only way forward and anyone with one iota of sense must agree. The current policies on illegal drugs have failed and education without action in the form of repealing current laws in favour of new legislation is futile.

 We are being asked to suffer the worst cuts in recent history but throw away millions of government money each year on drug legislation that has proven to be a failure and I think this is immoral at best. I demand from my government that they stop this waste of public money and insist that they sign up for the Vienna declaration which calls for evidence based policies from all countries.

The declaration can read in full here - http://www.viennadeclaration.com/

Anyone wishing to learn more about the effects of prohibition without reading large documents should visit - http://www.fead.org.uk/ where I find the views of Julian Buchanan and John Davies in particular very refreshing.

legalise, regulate, educate! alcohol is curently the only choice and its one of the worst ones, i grew up on alcohol as i was educated in school and they say all the drugs are bad and ilegal as they are bad for you so you asume that alcohol not being ilegal is ok to do wot you like with it but after 2 years of drinking i cane to realise alcohol was not safe in fact it was hideosly bad for me and my suroundings so i stopped and started smoking green and for 7 years thats been the way and i havent looked back. i hate the lvl drink culture has risen to and i think if more people had a choice there would be less broken trafic lights and shop windows and football riots because moore people would be on more peacefull drugs. the glass in my cannabis is worse for me than the cannabis if it was regulated like alcohol it would be less harfull.
Drugs are ilegal but i still take them all the time you can get hold of whotever you like just stand on the street corner and wave some money and some one will sell you something legalisation wont make more drug users as moste of THE PEOPLE THAT WANT TO DO DRUGS ARE ALREDDY DOING THEM! so make it safe how does prison help drug adicts? only drugs clinic helps drug addicts!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/[…]/

Sorry if you have already seen the above video but the research that was conducted into drugs with our tax £'s has been ignored for too long and answers many of the questions people may have about the whole drugs/cannabis issue.

We the public payed for the highest quality of SCIENTIFIC research and we should take good notice instead of wasting more tax £'s.

@OllyMolly:
Good post - succinct, accurate, perceptive and to the point - a welcome contribution. Thank you.

I wish we could mark these posts individually on a scale of, say, one to five. An analysis of such rankings would provide an indispensable insight into the general public's genuine opinion. If the people who came up with this idea and implemented this site are genuinely interested in the results it produces, it would be sensible to introduce a rating system like that.

Hurray @someone and bully for you just doesn't cut it. You're letting the real value of this site slip through your fingers. (Typical!)

Oh dear - another poll where the government & the drugs laws have been shown up to be out of touch...

http://markreckons.blogspot[…]hows-70-of-people-want.html

70% - that's a lot more than the government had voting for them.

Open the debate - get the experts in - I want to see a televised debate on mainstream TV at peak veiwing times where the viewers can vote by ringing in (like x-factor - with profits going to rehab projects) then lets realy see what the people want.

Not a yes/no vote but like the survey above with levels of control & regulation (18+ like alcohol, prescription only, prohibition).

But whatever happens criminialisation for possession must be stopped - users are not the criminals, they are users/victims and the people the law is supposed to protect.

PS
Would also be nice to have a few minutes to go back and edit posts for typos, etc. For example, in my post above, as is so often the case, it occurred to me too late that I should have punctuated the first sentence differently: "'Hurray @someone' and 'bully for you' just doesn't cut it." Assuming you're genuinely interested in making the most of this exercise, that is.

To all you prohibitionists who say the government might as well legalise murder and paedophilia if they’re going to legalise drugs: let’s look at this in another way.

Let’s say the government introduce a law which states everyone must brush their teeth after eating.

Someone’s out shopping; they stop for a quick snack, but OH NO! They’ve forgotten their toothbrush. They hurry out and try to get back to the car without anyone noticing. On the way, they see a police officer. They try to act natural but the police officer smells the food on their breath. He asks them to stop, then panic sets in. This is the third time they’ve forgotten to brush their teeth. It’s no longer a caution: it’s up to 4 years in prison!

They had to do 200 hours community service with a final warning before being handed a prison sentence. All for forgetting to brush their teeth! Poor dental hygiene leads to heart disease, so they claim have a good reason!

This probably all sounds ridiculous, but then this is the drug laws. This is what a lot of us, normally, law abiding citizens have to put up with, on a regular basis.

We're responsible adults and we want to be treated as such. We're capable of making our own decisions based on the facts. The government has no rights to tell us what we can’t do to ourselves. They should provide us with adequate education and information, on which to base our decisions. Law enforcement is there to protect people from each other; while health care professionals can advise people how to best live a healthy life, and be able to treat those who need it.

@McD

You could contact an admin directly here: http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/contact-info :-P

@stevebrewell

What for?

They promised to read it. It's their loss - yet another justification for the loss of trust this website's organisers enjoy - if they don't take advantage of it. They initiated it and lead us to believe our opinions were of value to them. If so, then it's up to them to make the most of the opportunity they've created. I don't mind going along with it for as long as there's no obvious indication they're not doing what they've said they wanted to do with the information they're given here, but I'm not going to do all the running. If our thoughts and feelings are really of any value to them, it's got to be down to them to make the most efficient use of this opportunity. If not, they'll justify the cynics' evaluation of them. I try to fulfil my responsibilities here as I perceive them, e.g. make a sincere effort to help them understand my thoughts and feelings. It's got to be down to them to do some of the donkey work. Or might they already be looking for a reason why they're not able to make use of what they've learnt here?

Some people consider the notion of drug legalization to be bizarre and radical, a drastic step. But inebriating drugs have been mostly legal throughout the millennia of human existence; the drastic step was taken in the second decade of this century in the United States when for the first time large-scale, comprehensive legal control of inebriating drugs was implemented. Some people claim that legalization represents a daring and risky experiment, but they are wrong. Prohibition is the daring and risky experiment

The experiment has been a dismal and costly failure.

Human and animal use of inebriants is as natural as any other aspect of social behavior; it is the attempt to control this normal animal drive that is bizarre and unnatural, it is a crime against human and animal nature.

I see the ACMD are being impartial again with work to ban Naphyrone...a drug they don't seem to know much about according to Prof Nutt:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/[…]/banning-naphyrone-acmd-recommendation

@McD

Firstly, you need to know the difference between moderators and administrators.

Mods control the content.
Admin runs the website.

If you want to get your points through to the right people; I suggest you contact an admin. A moderator might pass your sentiments on to an administrator, but there's no guarantee.

Secondly, your points are off-topic so are likely just to be deleted by a moderator. I agree with your suggestions, but I fear they may be wasted in here. Send them to an admin.

Well, Steve, you're wrong, because I don't need to know anything at all.

by mhumphreys on July 03, 2010 at 11:02AM

Parliament creates crimes. People commit them.

Every time a criminal offence is created by our parliament an opportunity is presented for people to break the new law and make themselves criminals.

The best way of reducing crime is to reduce the number of crimes on the statute books.

The Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and the trafficking Acts and the three UN Conventions not only create more opportunities for people to become criminals than all other laws and treaties put together, it hands the monopoly for the production, supply and distribution of the most profitable and largest trade in the world to these self-made criminals.

They then control this trade and encourage others, who need their products, to commit more crimes such as burglary and muggings and murders.

About sixty per cent of the world's incarcerated criminals are people who have been caught up in this web. More people have been killed in the drugs wars in Mexico, in the last three years alone, than all the uniformed combatants in the recent and current Yugoslavian, Iraqi and Afghan wars.

All current anti-crime laws encourage crime it and kill more people than all wars.

All these laws and treaties should be repealed and governments should take control of all systems for the supply of all drugs.
Perhaps one simple law and one simple treaty could then handle the few dispirited and foolish dealers who still insist on competing with the properly controlled and legal system.

Within 20 years all our prisons would empty, addicts could seek safe and effective treatment safe from the fear of state oppression and the crime and killing would stop.

@mhumphreys
"Within 20 years all our prisons would empty..."

That's a very good point, did you know that last year the Netherlands were asking surrounding countries to send them their criminals as they don't have enough themselves to fill their own prisons.

Yet another reason why heroin addicts need access to clean pure drugs.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/[…]/anthrax-heroin-deaths

http://www.drugequality.org[…]tion_Consultation_Paper.pdf

I can waffle forever about the contents of the above PDF, it is the now complete Draft of a Public consultation paper that was mothballed by the labour Gov.

See Page 15, section 6.8 for some interesting reading.

Many thanks for all the hard work at the Drug Equality Alliance in persuing this documents full release.

One way forward could be to discuss the issues and questions raised within this paper as I'm sure the resulting debate would be most relevant.

Just read this...let's hope this Russian doesn't get anywhere near a seat of power, this would a huge backwards step in drug policy.

http://stopthedrugwar.org/[…]/russian_head_UNODC_Fedotov

If you can't view the video on the above link , you can watch it directly here:

http://drogriporter.hu/en/fedotov

I quite like the idea of the law being there to protect me from other people.

I do not believe that it is the role of the law to protect me from myself.

It is time to de-criminalise drugs so that I can make my own choices and decisions.

LEGALISE DRUGS
Legalise Drugs – prescribe heroin etc on the NHS and remove the crime associated with drugs. This will remove the need for addicts to burgle and rob us to feed their habit. It will cost less than all the police time, jails, coastguards etc etc associated with the prohibition of drugs. Of course it won’t cure the problem, but the present system hasn’t cured it either, and never will. Nothing except education to motivate people to enjoy life will. Give people something to live for, without having to blot it out. Methadone substitute does not give the same high as heroin. Give the poppy growers in Afghanistan a legal market for a useful product for addicts and medicine.
Prohibition in 1930’s America yielded –would you believe – gang killings, organised crime, prostitution etc. PROHIBITION DOES NOT WORK.
Concomitant with this is legislation to enable addicts to be deported to their countries of residence, including Europe, because no doubt they will stick to the old ways…

My honourable friends - I bring into evidence another reason why drugs are illegal (unless you are big business).

GW Pharmicuticles

They take Skunk cannabis, grind up the plant & use alcohol to extract THC, CBD & CBN from the plant and convert it into a spray.

This process is in line with making "Isolator hash" or "Hash oil" for those that have been to Amsterdam or are up on their cannabis terminoligy - This would also explain why some users that were fine with herbal cannabis (15-25% THC) have issues with Sativex (60% THC).

Sativex also costs significantly more than the cannabis needed to make it - so BIG PROFITS for GW Pharm' and their shareholders (read MP's, financial institutions, etc).

GW Pharm' would not have been given a license to sell Sativex in the UK unless it passed safety trials - therefore Cannabis must be safe to use.

GW Pharm' share price rocketed when the license for Sativex was granted for the UK.

At this point I think "CONSPIRACY"........

So the "Evil Skunk" is not Evil at all if in the hands of big business that lobbies MP's - It is highly profitable. But if your joe-public it is evil and will only be profitable for organised crime, the police, CPS, solicitors & Prison service.

I rest my case.

Regulate and educate, diverge funding into prohibtion into schools and health care.

stop being stupid!

Re: mhumphreys....

'More people have been killed in the drugs wars in Mexico, in the last three years alone, than all the uniformed combatants in the recent and current Yugoslavian, Iraqi and Afghan wars'.

The problem is that these deaths have occured in Mexico so don't directly effect the UK or USA.

Back in June 55 bodies were found in a mexican mine shaft which was used by local drug gangs to dipsose of their victims bodies. Most had decomposed so badly that they could not be recognised but one was identified as being the Director of the local prison.

These drug cartels have armies of thousands and in some areas of Mexico control the towns/cities where they live. You have to wonder what we are creating here by allowing these cartels to grow each day and make billions of £'s via the drugs trade. God only know what the long term consequences will be.....

LEGALISE, REGULATE, EDUCATE.

Completely agree - time for some real, long lasting, beneficial change

They're not listening yet:

http://www.independent.co.u[…]e-class-b-drug-2024911.html

In fairness, nobody has any idea what naphyrone does to the brain. They're effectively selling medicine without a license, or any trials.
If people gave informed consent and had medical advice, maybe it would be OK (I guess that's how we get data), but selling it OTC is unreasonable.

Those that call for a "science based" drug policy are, in fact, missing the point because there's no logical inference that leads from a drug being dangerous to the user to that drug being illegal.

The proper rule here is Caveat Emptor, but the goods must be properly labelled.

Please note the disappearance of the tag 'drugs' from the main tags form, in the same manner that 'cannabis' tag 'disappeared'.

RE: Naphyrlyone - these new 'legal' highs are a direct product of prohibition, and would simply not exist as an issue if MDMA (which we know much more about in terms of safety) were available at the chemist.
Yes, there needs to be a mechanism for controlling new drugs, but because they cause harm does not mean we 'ban' them. You can drink a pint of meths if you want or sniff all the glue in the world but we don't 'ban' these products for this reason. They are clearly not for human consumption, the health effects are widely known, and the products labelled correctly and are restricted for sale to those under a certain age.

"In fairness, nobody has any idea what naphyrone does to the brain."

That's the point... if MDMA which has been tested was available legally in some way than any new formation would have to be better and be tested before people went for it.
Instead of looking for a safer or better chemical they're just looking for one that isn't caught under the prohibition then dumping it on the market without proper checks or trials.

100% agreed, but I honestly believe that the more dangerous drugs require traceability and licensure; we know now that a significant proportion of people will take any drugs regardless of its safety or addictiveness. See tobacco.

Allowing unrestricted access genuinely risks creating an underclass of drug addicts.

How do people feel about the natural drugs (cannabis, mushrooms, coca leaf, raw tobacco) being available unrestrictedly (with license to sell), while refined products are available only with license card?

I feel people would use tobacco a lot more responsibly in its natural form. People who want a particular drug take a little course and learn how to use safely prior to getting their card. Allowing the drugs to get to children or persistently causing a nuisance means an automatic suspension of license. This would cover cocaine, morphine derivatives, MDMA, alcohol, refined tobacco etc.
Card is a 2D barcode which is scanned at the till, providing a photo of the licensee and authorization at the pharmacy. A PIN is entered on a government issued tamper-evident tablet running a modified version of android OS. All queries about your account, including police queries without a gag order with the subpoena are emailed to the the user in real time. They could even charge your credit card or bank account, to not require people to carry large amounts of money

Potential conflicts are over opium (natural, addictive, dangerous) and alcohol (artificial?, middlingly addictive, middlingly dangerous).
Have a seven day grace period card for tourists on alcohol and cigarettes with a foreign passport, in recognition of surrounding cultures. Still revocable for disorderly conduct.

Generous phase in period.

Seem reasonable?

I also wonder why 'Precedent' applies to all areas of law with the exception of Drugs.

Alcohol and Tobacco are legal but drugs like ecstasy and cannabis are not? Even though they have been scientifically proven to be less harmful?

I'm surprised our outdated drug laws have not been challenged in a court of law as they simply discriminate a user of an illegal drug when compared against a user of a legal drug. The only difference in legality is history and some peoples ‘moral’ beliefs.

I would also add the Prohibition has created a huge number of normal law abiding citizens that detest their local police forces due to their constant interference in telling us what we can and cannot ingest.

moderators have removed the main tag for cannabis fromt the home page

FREEDOM ? what freedom there scared the truth will come out the war on drugs will never be won

moderators have removed the main tag for cannabis fromt the home page

FREEDOM ? what freedom there scared the truth will come out the war on drugs will never be won

moderators have removed the main tag for cannabis fromt the home page

FREEDOM ? what freedom there scared the truth will come out the war on drugs will never be won

moderators have removed the main tag for cannabis fromt the home page

FREEDOM ? what freedom there scared the truth will come out the war on drugs will never be won

moderators have removed the main tag for cannabis fromt the home page

FREEDOM ? what freedom there scared the truth will come out the war on drugs will never be won

moderators have removed the main tag for cannabis fromt the home page

FREEDOM ? what freedom there scared the truth will come out the war on drugs will never be won

Its been re-added fatherjack!

Jimbob, the thing about the "morality" of it is entirely artificial!

There is nothing inherently wrong with taking any substance, legal or otherwise. Indeed, some of our finest cultural pieces such as literature and music are directly attributed to them!

The whole arguement, to my mind is an artificial construct which has been around for long enough now to be deeply ingrained in those without the faculty to think for themselves.

Hand on heart, I can say that was my view many years ago. Live and learn though!

Cathal,

Is it not the case that there is already this underclass? And that instead of support and healthcare, we criminalise and punnish them?

We, as a society actively force these people to act against all of our interests in order to fund their habit.

On principle it irks me to conceed that to attain the goal of the removal of prohibition we should accept registration but the pragmatic view is its a minor concession which is probably worth it.

For those every day working people who use a drugs recreationally, using id to purchase quality controlled products is far better than having to deal with the undesirable people currently meeting their requirements!

Indeed they are Gildas.

Many of us will remember Spice. It was claimed by certain retaillers that it was an entirely natural "blend". Many users weren't fooled but bought it anyway.

They reported that it could have a stronger effect than many strains of cannabis around at the time and gave them a significantly more "fuzzy" feeling which could last for a few days. Those are just the short term effects.

Substances such as MDMA are well understood by the scientific community and have been used countless millions of times by people in the UK, those who've come to harm as a direct effect of the substance are statistically insignificant (afaik, lower than the margin of error on every single study) yet it makes great copy for the tabloids.

Soupdragon, I couldn't agree more. However, in order to prop up this discussion with rational arguement, the scientific evidence has to be discussed.

That the evidence almost unquestionably proves the majority of drugs are significantly safer than other, legal substances shows just how crazy the UK's drugs laws are!

I simply do not agree. We have to stamp out drugs. Why not toughen up and make it a criminal offence to have any trace of a classified drug, or its break down products, in a persons blood stream. Let us also make evidence that someone is absolutely clear of drugs a condition of release from prison.

Lawrenn,

Why don't you agree? If a person chooses to take, for example an Ecstasy pill in a nightclub, dances and has a fun night with friends and others, goes home, to bed and then back to work, what harm is there to you?

Lets also look at the far end of the spectrum. We all know that Heroin is an addictive drug and can be severely detrimental to users. However, the crime associated with it stems from its high cost due to it being a black market product.

Even the President of ACPO suggested that it should be prescribed to addicts to prevent crime (http://www.independent.co.u[…]able-on-the-nhs-436974.html).

Prohibition has not worked! It does not work. I'd be interested in hearing why you think it should continue as opposed to what you think should be done with those who live their lives differently from you.

Hi all,

Apologies if i've not replied to you directly but there are a lot of comments in here, all of them interesting!

I'm thrilled that so many people are making evidence based posts and are able to articulate themselves to the government in this way.

We need to keep up the pressure and demand that this be considered. The black market will continue unabated, once one supply route is closed, another opens to fill it. The criminal organisations who run this market encourage crime and are a blight on this country.

People should be free to behave as they wish providing it is not deterimental to others.

Other nations are starting to see the benefits and reap the rewards of ending prohibition. The evidence is in clear view for us all.

Please continue to comment, post this link and do whatever you can to ensure we keep this subject prominent on this site.

Admins/Government - I have communicated with you directly on the occasions you have closed this idea. I remember the election commitment of Nick Clegg to ask the public what should be done to make this country a better place. This is at the heart of it. It may seem trivial, political suicide or unlikely but there is a huge body of evidence and support for it. It is a subject many feel strongly about and want to discuss directly with you. When you seek to review this, please get in touch so we can talk about HOW to proceed, not IF we will.

@Carl
We do, indeed, have an addicted underclass. And I believe that they should be given free treatment in order to bring their drugs usage to the point that they can live an independent life.

And then, who cares if they purchase some diacetylmorphine for a nice trip on a Sunday under safe conditions.

If that's what make the rest of their lives worthwhile.

Just read this on another blog, it gives the history of drug prohibition in the UK. I found it interesting, so I thought I'd post it:

http://www.cedro-uva.org/lib/jay.legalisation.html

If addicts are supplied with the drugs they are addicted to on the NHS under the condition they accept help to overcome their addiction then I cannot see any issues.

If they do not have to steal or prostitute themselves to pay for it then society will be better and there will be no market for the pushers to exploit.

We could lead the way in drug policy in Europe, maybe even the world if we do it right. Something has to be done as we are becoming the mini US and creating a huge underclass of people with drug use/dealer convictions, with no hope of work etc. Over 300,00 (rising all the time and getting younger) heroin addicts and the mass of crime that is part and partial of prohibition. Our police are getting more corrupt with ever year that passes. We have police officers in court for drug offenses and extortion, illegal firearm sales etc, that's without all the complaints of heavy handedness. If we don't change our drug policy soon to one that treats users as human beings and not pariahs in a few years we won't have to worry about the economy or the rule of law, there will be anarchy.

Prohibition does not work!

And the ultimate irony is you can get 5 years in jail for illegal possesion of a firearm but you can get 14 years for possesing a plant.

Until drug laws are repealed I'll never be convinced that our political servants are not in the pay of gangsters. It is in the gangsters interest to keep these relatively harmless substances illegal. Every day this continues to be illegal is another day we give more power to the gangsters. One day we will lose the power to get it back. That day is the day we gave away our democracy.

 

Collins definition of a "drug" . A chemical substance, such as a narcotic, taken for the effects it produces. I might be being really stupid here but what is alcohol, nicotine, even caffeine??

I disagree with the comment comparing people who consume currently illegal drugs with murderous, the only person being harmed is the self.

I think its seams preposterous that we spend 19million on convicting drug users. if you could get it like suggested from a chemist then the people who sell then would not have a job reducing there ability to participate in organised crime. Plus with all that spare cash we could invest in other much needed areas, like the rehabilitation of the people effected by this current black market trading.

I just think its very hipercritical to ban certain things when alcohol is legal, you are completely within your rights to get blind drunk drop your trouser, Puke up and irreversibly damage your whole body, causing live, heart and obesity problems to name a few costing the nhs millions when you ban something with much fewer death and nhs costs.

As for it encouraging or glamourising drug taking i really don't think this will be the case as if you want it you can get it on the black market so you wouldn't start just because it became legal would you.

Last of all in all my time i have never been in a situation with people taking recreational drugs when someone has accidentally split someones drink and it ended in one person dead, how many time do we read about a drunken fight gone wrong.

The actual cost last year of prohibition in the UK was £19 Billion. The estimated value of the cannabis market is £6.5 Billion (tax free). The government estimate 10% of the population use cannabis. That is either a lot of prison places they are going to have to build and pay for (£45,000 pa) or a lot of tax revenue that could be spent on education and health. If I was Mr Osbourne I know what I'd want.

Alcohol i killing my aunt , I know people who have been smoking Cannabis , using mushrooms even Lsd Xtc and the rest for at least as long as she has been drinking , and with cannabis twice as long and many of them on a daily basis, without noticing any problems in either mental or physical health. I will be honest , i have seen ,on occasion, some people lose there heads a little (usually people who also drink , mix drugs or have some previous mental health issue) ..but i have never seen any one who took cannabis or mushrooms destroyed the way my aunt is, she cant remember who we are (and i imagine who she is , but getting much more than giggles or crying is hard) , she is constantly in pain , people steel from her without her realizing, her only motivation is the booze in the fridge that she repeatedly goes for , even with a full drink in her hand , she is not the only victim i have seen of the current drug law situation (a victim? yes, because maybe if she had had a choice of a less damaging crutch perhaps she might have chosen it) i have seen others like it and many on there way too it , something needs to change , people are being prosecuted for making informed, sensible and safer choices concerning there use of intoxicants. We are being killed by these laws, not only for the above reason , but because they limit medical research into these plants and compounds.

David Nutt is right and should be involved in all decisions made on this subject.

Carl / Cathal...

Maybe some form of ID but if this starts to be intrusive, or if this creates a 'record' on some system that has to be declared on job applications etc. people will simply continue to by them illegally and the system will fail.

Also, I've just noticed that the DRUGS heading has been removed from the Home Page although Cannabis remains. I hope other people are emailing into raise this as it will make fewer people likely to find this link!

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/[…]/param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/91[…]GB&amp;fs=1?rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

Watch the informative video above!

Sign the Vienna Declaration below:

http://org2.democracyinaction.org/[…]/?action_KEY=2794

The last advisor to the govt got sacked for telling the truth about drugs. Rating the 'top 20' used drugs in the UK.

The govt. didn't like it so sacked him, even though he IS an authority on the drugs.

Portugal has decriminalised drigs and a recent report clearly states, crime and drug use dropped.

‘Tory contender calls for more liberal drug laws’ – The Independent 07.09.05

David Cameron, the Tory leadership contender, believes the UN should consider legalising drugs and wants hard-core addicts to be provided with legal "shooting galleries" and state-prescribed heroin.

He also supported calls for ecstasy to be downgraded from the class-A status it shares with cocaine and heroin and said it would be "disappointing" if radical options on the law on cannabis were not looked at.

His remarks will shock many Tories MPs who have traditionally taken a hard line on drug possession and use. The leadership contender said he favoured "fresh thinking and a new approach" towards drugs policy and said "we have to let 1,000 flowers bloom and look at all sort of different treatment models" for heroin addicts.

Ann Widdecombe, the former Home Office minister who is supporting Kenneth Clarke for the Tory leadership, criticised Mr Cameron's views and said that legalising drugs would only encourage use.

"This is a grossly misled view that will have very damaging consequences for society," she said. "Most Conservatives would make the case that legalisation is misguided. If you legalise hard drugs you would effectively be making the state give first-time users their first experience.

"It's just not an option. And the World Health Organisation is against it."

Legalisation campaigners welcomed Mr Cameron's stance, saying he recognised that current policy, which involved criminalising users, had failed. " David Cameron deserves our utmost respect and admiration for refusing the 'war on drugs' rhetoric in calling for a discussion of legalisation with the UN body that oversees global prohibition," said Danny Kushlick, the director of the Transform Drug Policy Foundation. He added: "Too many politicians support the status quo because of careerism."

The Conservative leadership contender voted, when he was a member of the Home Affairs Select Committee, for the UN body on drugs policy to look at whether to legalise and regulate the drugs trade. He opposed his Tory colleague, Angela Watkinson, who tried to block the call to initiate talks in the UN and voted against her with Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs.

He called on the Government to "initiate a discussion" within the UN about "alternative ways - including the possibility of legalisation and regulation - to tackle the global drugs dilemma". In its report on drugs policy, published three years ago, the select committee backed the decision by the then home secretary, David Blunkett, to downgrade cannabis from class B to class C, a decison which is being reviewed after concerns that stronger forms of cannabis, such as skunk, are in more widespread use.

The report also supported creating safe "shooting galleries" for heroin addicts.

A spokesman for Mr Cameron said he was not making the case for legalising drugs but that he supported keeping "an open mind" about dealing with drug abuse. "Drugs strategy has been failing so it is important politicians can keep an open mind about how to deal with it. He isn't saying anything should be done. He is saying options should be considered."

David Cameron was quoted as saying…

"Politicians attempt to appeal to the lowest common denominator by posturing with tough policies and calling for crackdown after crackdown. Drugs policy has been failing for decades."

A lot to read through in my above post but hopefully of interest to those of you that wonder what David Cameron's stance is on drugs.

We now have to see whether he is a man of his word or whether he becomes yet another that wimpers away from his real views on Drug Policies, now that he is in a position of power, in order protect his career and negative feedback from the Daily Mail brigade!

Came across this interesting history piece Legalisation: The First Hundred Years.
What happened when drugs were legal and why they were prohibited. http://www.cedro-uva.org/lib/jay.legalisation.html

Forgive me for being naive, but how is it 'political suicide' for a politician to address a problem with the law which is causing untold damage to society: criminalising otherwise law-abiding individuals who contribute to society, sigmatising users and destroying futures, funding BILLIONS of pounds worth of crime, promoting alcohol use and abuse, fuelling a very healthy disrespect for the law, wasting BILLIONS in policing and prison, losing out on massive tax revenues etc etc
In my mind; once the tabloids have done with their sniping and pathetic, immature headlines for a day or two following any change to a sensible policy, then we can get down to the business of sorting this whole mess out through regulation, education and public health initiatives.
History will show these laws to be the real disgrace that they are. We will look back in astonishment at absurdity of the situation that we sleep-walked into. The prohibitionists will quietly leave the room; and good riddance, because they have blood on their hands.

My take on OllyMolly's question

The political parties have to gain funding, if they decriminalised they would risk losing either part or all of their funding as the 'elite' wouldn't back them, that's how I see it anyway. Let's face it ALL political parties worship money don't they?

I used to think it was to do with the public opinion and the media but that's too simple, all that would have to happen to get change is for the public to be re-educated about the truth for the political parties to include drug policy reform.

Judging by the poll carried out by the Liberal party drug reform group that states that 70% of the public want an end to prohibition I think that re-education has been taken on board. Yes middle England would probably scream if prohibition was to end but they aren't the ones the parties are frightened of, they're not the ones with the money....big business is.

Save my son's life! Let him be prescribed heroin on the NHS. He is 32 and has been using for 8 years, has been through detox many times but always relapses, like 98% of people who inject heroin. Heroin changes the brain leaving triggers that make relapse virtually inevitable.
Legalising or at least decriminalising drugs will also make drugs education much more accessible. My son is self-medicating with heroin for a mental illness caused by cannabis. There is not enough information about that danger because only a small percentage of kids who try cannabis end up in a mental hospital.
My son is on a methadone programme but it does not work well and does not stop him spending all his benefit on heroin. He could even work if he was prescribed heroin like addicts did in the 60s, saving the state more money. The Swiss have adopted 'the English method' and it is working well.

Haven't read all the comments - so duplication likely:
This is a public health issue - not a criminal justice one.

Lets have some open discussion of the experience of Portugal since decriminalisation.

LISTEN to the Drug Advisory experts, not the media panic-mongers.

my_name_is_not_here - Not sure why you think big business has a vested interest in prohibition. On the contrary an end to prohibition would mean a significant new trade for the pharmaceuticals industry. The only Big Business that would suffer would be organised crime. I think it's more a generational thing. It seems to me that the older you are, the more likely to be a prohibitionist. They are certainly a threatened species on-line. I hope that the Internet generation are more resistant to official propaganda. I think there's a general problem with politicians which comes down to an irrational fear of releasing control of anything. They think that, if they legalise then they will feel, and be held, responsible for the next person that dies of a drug overdose. The people who are dying at the moment are not doing so with official permission. Perhaps, to a politician, 100 people who die breaking the law is less bad than one person who dies "innocent".

 

Ref: Olly Molly

I agree with your comments but many traditionalists and some Media (i.e. Daily Mail) would create uproar if Cameron proposed legalisation.

You only have to look at the attention that Mephedrone attracted. The chemical was banned after rushing legislation through without any real research based on 20 or so suspected deaths which in the end was unsubstantiated.

Unfortunately there are still a huge number of prohibitionists that can not get their head around legalisation as they have been fed incorrect facts for so long. If there was a vote on legalisation there should be 6 months of presenting the facts before this takes place. Many prohibitionists that do not read this type of forum simply get their facts and form their opinions from the Daily Mail and such like!

You know, I think I finally understand why senior politicians, and even most political pundits won't think about legalisation, and if I'm right it's a huge, perhaps insuperable problem. When somebody's son or daughter dies of a drug overdose now who do the parents blame? The pusher. Never will they place responsibility on the prohibitionists. The prohibitionists are responsible for the deaths only statistically, not for individual cases. If we legalise who will those parents blame? They'll blame the legislators who supported legalisation. They will say "because you made it easy for my son/daughter to get these drugs he/she is dead." A legaliser will be held (and will feel) responsible for those deaths on an individual basis. We all know, intellectually, that there will be less deaths, but statistics have no traction on our emotions. It's very easy for us here to point out the logical case for legalisation but we won't carry any of that responsibility if it happens. And this, I think, is why the Camerons of this world might see the logic of liberalisation as long as they are far from the seat of real power, but the closer they get the more they see that horrible burden of responsibility. The question becomes, if you could save a thousand people by killing one innocent, would you do it?

legalisation is the only way to take control of the whole mess.

The problem with legal highs is that there was no real regulation as they were sold as 'not suitable for human consumption' so they could sell them to whoever as it is 'not' intended to be taken. If drugs where legalised they would have proper controll on the market ensuring the drugs are as safe as possible (and lot of illegal drugs when pure are much safer than alcohol), age restrictions and true facts on the possible dangers they may cause.

Legalising all currently illegal drugs would be the responsible thing for the goverment to do.

@soupdragon

Most illicit drug deaths are a direct result of the prohibition environment that chaotic users have imposed upon them. That includes the drug itself and the lottery of what it actually contains.

In a legal environment the situation would change from the current atmoshere of persecution, secrecy, crime, violence, punishment and squalor to one of regulation, quality, reliability, availabilty and where chaotic users who struggle to find their feet can be offered medical assistance without threat of criminal sanction or being forced into drug abuse programmes that feed them even more deadly and addicting drugs like methadone.

Politicians don't have to worry about the accusation of "murdering" people with legalised drugs any more than they do about those far higher numbers who drink or smoke themselves to death with the deadly but legal drugs, alcohol and tobacco.

Both of which are far more dangerous drugs than many of the illicit plants.

The real drug problem is entirely with society and it's attitudes to some drugs and those who use them. A vindictive and hate fuelled, persecutory attitude that has been bought and paid for by successive governments peddling drug war propaganda and lies using obscene amounts of valuable public funding.

Legalise, regualte and educate(everyone). Let's have some freedom, responsibility and common bloody sense.

<< Politicians don't have to worry about the accusation of "murdering" people with legalised drugs any more than they do about those far higher numbers who drink or smoke themselves to death with the deadly but legal drugs, alcohol and tobacco. >>

Yes, I'm afraid they do. This is not a matter of logic, it's a matter of human nature. And it's not just the red-tops, they fear they will feel guilty for such deaths themselves.

The consequences of action always weigh more heavily on the conscience than the consequences of inaction. The current leaders are not responsible for the current availability of tobacco or alcohol and they know that banning either is politically infeasible even if they wanted to.

If they repeal drugs prohibition the free availability of drugs will be a direct result of a choice they made. So those that use that availability to kill themselves will also be (or seem to be) their responsibility.

This is why the more influence people feel they have on an actual decision the more likely they are to support the status quo, where all these deaths are the fault of the Evil Pushers.

I heard a government minister the other day say something like "We won't be responsible for someone taking their first dose of heroin". I think that's the way they see it.

Not sure if anyone's read this article on the bbc

http://www.bbc.co.uk/[…]/tension_at_heart_of_drug_classification.html

Spot on!!

Let me start by saying I have never and will never take any of these Drugs, (I dont smoke, drink and watch how much caffine i take in)

I do however have a lot of first hand knowledge. I look after users of these drugs on a 24/7 basis, I have choosen to make a difference by having upto 6 users at any one time live with me on a permanent basis. Providing stable environment which in time helps them reduce and get clean.

I would totally support Repealling this Act, it would reduce the requirements to goto people who constantly give out the wrong stuff, provide packs of mixes which are far more dangerous than the drug itself. People who use the money to fund other crimes, and the associated violence. It would enable us to be adults about the issue.

Yes it would mean that the Mother / Father who just lost a child, would need to accept that their Child and Maybe them were the problem, Yes the media at first would have weeks of headlines calling for the heads of politicians, but I want to be treated as an individual who has responsibility in all aspects and would like to see others assume the same responsibilities.

The money arguement does stack up as well, but is such a small part of the arguement to me.

Prohibition only causes more harm and costs the country more money.

People have the freedom to choose what to put in their body and people will do so no matter if illegal or not. So as a country we should make sure these drugs are legalized so we know the exact dosages of drugs so the drugs are pure and not cut with other substances so that we can offer guidance and support to people who do use just like with alcohol and tobacco.

We should also be the ones recieving the profits made from selling such items in tax etc instead of it being made by drug dealers and it helping to fund crime.

It's embarrassing that in such a modern civilized country we can make such a simple issue so taboo, the talk to FRANK adverts being a great example of how much more the government would rather take the easy way out and try and scare people than investing in teaching people the real dangers and benefits and offer them real advice that is not biast.

Would also help the Afghanis & Colombians as their main exports are illegal. Where too many criminals are taking their slice of the profit.

It is very important that the public desire for reassessment of the drug laws is widely and publicly acknowledged by the Government. It would really improve trust in politicians and police among a large group of disenfranchised people.

If cameron wants his knighthood this would be a goo dplave to start.

Deficet - sorted
Nhs targets - sorted
Crime numbers - Sorted
respect of public - sorted
save money on NHS drugs and treatment - sorted
jobs and oppotunity - sorted
growth in agriculture - sorted
jail numbers - sorted
legal aid cap - sorted
alcohol related incidents - well, not sorted but improved
Tourism - sorted (if it became annoying ban sales to non UK)
im getting rsi from typing sorted.
you get the gist

did you know CBD is belived to be an effective treatment of psychosis - look it up!

Just seen this posted on another forum, a report from the Chairman of the Bar Council of the United Kingdom and Wales, Nicholas Green QC has called for the end of prohibition, second and third paragraph down:

http://www.barcouncil.org.uk/[…]/detail.php?id=179

Big news and this was a few weeks ago wasnt it?

If your question was aimed at me Raggy, the report was dated the 29th June, and yes it's certainly a step in the right direction. It might encourage others to be a little more daring and state what they think.

my_name:

i dont know if you watched the house of lords when lady meacher broached the subject and one mp even admitted the use in early years and in my opinion defended it to some degree by telling everyone how she danced alot (followed by laughter from nearly all)

I think people are becoming more vocal and it speaks volume to me

Yes I did and I agree with you, it does my old ticker a lot of good to hear people in power acting like real human beings and speaking honestly, it doesn't happen often enough. Mind you once they get in to the Lords they can relax a bit, they don't have to worry about getting re-elected.

@soupdragon
"I heard a government minister the other day say something like "We won't be responsible for someone taking their first dose of heroin". I think that's the way they see it."

I agree, and hell, that's the way I used to see it. It is not until misinformed people are educated about what they are really supporting that things can change. This website is a welcome opportunity for expressing the important arguments for change. And boy do we have many of them.
"Raucous and unscripted" was how Cleff saw this website. Unscripted, yes, but as it happens, not so raucous. It appears that those who seek to label those against prohibition as 'druggies', 'hippies' and lamabst them for somehow 'encouraging drug use' have disappeared somewhat; their arguments failing to stand up to any scrutiny whatsoever. It is wonderful to see mature debate on this issue, but a pity politicians never engage because of the ridiculous stigma, that they perpetuate.

We must change the simplistic attitude demonstrated in the quote above, so that society no longer feels comfortable sustaining such a truly harmful policy. This minister MUST be told that they are currently responsible for thousands upon thousands of people taking their first dose of heroin RIGHT NOW (through unregulated markets), and then punishing them severely for it; to create a cycle of addiction, crime and all round misery for everyone.

lol CleGG :)

"I heard a government minister the other day say something like "We won't be responsible for someone taking their first dose of heroin". I think that's the way they see it."

-------

What politicians HAVE to realise is that by the very nature of consciously handing these substances over to criminals and the criminal justice system and not prescribing in a controlled and regulated setting - eg The 'British Experiment' that the Swiss are using - they ARE responsible for EVERY first street heroin shot.

They can abdicate responsibility all they wish but they ARE responsible for the 330,000 heroin addicts in this country.

They are also responsible for the large numbers of young people using alcohol, mephedrone etc as it is THEIR legislation that is pushing them away from the less harmful substances such as cannabis.

THEY are the ones that have confused the subject so much with their arguments about 'lethal skunk' etc in the majority of the publics minds that kids now will take anything 'cos they don't trust a damned thing thats told them anymore. Maybe that was the governments intention, only they know.

And I will say it again UK Government you are already responsible for the citizens of this country whether you like it or not. By regulating currently 'controlled drugs' you will be taking young people out of the hands of dealers and into treatment. By regulating cannabis you will be taking it out of the dealers hands and slashing their profits. 'Cannabis farms' would be a thing of the past if there were licensed outlets with licensed growers. There is SO much you can do just by being proactive and not reactive as the criminal justice system is now.

Come on, take a chance, hell it can't get much worse and from the evidence of Portugal it CAN get a hell of a lot better.

but this minister is fine pushing people to alcohol and fags and believing that drugs from the doctor are safe!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10680062

more for less? i dont think so tim!

is cameron on crack?

This idea seems to be better then taxing cannabis???

i am an ex-voter

Although we all want full legalisation, it may be that decriminalisation of users is the first step.

One thing I would highlight is that although we all point to Portugal as a country that has successfully implemented decriminalisation, we too in the UK also have recreational drugs that are decriminalised – they are steroids.

Let’s not be under any pretence that Steroids are not recreational drugs. Steroids are a Class C drugs and are illegal to sell but the government has effectively decriminalised users if found with small quantities for personal use.

In fact, yet another of the endless 'Prohibition Ironies' is seeing some steroid abusing bouncer hand some 'dirty druggy' over to the police for the 1 ecstasy tablet they found in his pocket in some nightclub!! We even have steroid taking cops at our gym – how does that work??

Yet again, just like alcohol, we have a group of drugs that can promote allsorts of health risks and increase aggression being 'decriminalised' and then a drug like cannabis is illegal with criminal records being dished out for possession?

I am in no doubt that Cameron and Clegg feel that a move toward legalisation is required. But only time will tell if they are remembered as the government that finally ended the negligent and discriminatory ‘Misuse of Drugs Act’ or will they be yet another government that just avoid it?

I didn't know that about steroids....but it certainly explains the shift in attitude of the police recently if they're taking them.

It's almost as if 'peaceable' substances and users are being stamped on and anything that can make the user violent and unpredictable are encouraged. Makes you wonder exactly what the motive is doesn't it?

The Chair of the Bar Council agrees with you
"Drug related crime costs the economy about £13bn a year. Again a growing body of comparative evidence suggests that decriminalising personal use can have positive consequences; it can free up huge amounts of police resources, reduce crime and recidivism and improve public health. All this can be achieved without any overall increase in drug usage. If this is so, then it would be rational to follow suit."
Nicholas Green QC, 26th Jun, 2010
http://www.barcouncil.org.uk/[…]/detail.php?id=179

http://www.barcouncil.org.uk/[…]/detail.php?id=179
Full link.

Re: my_name_is_not_here

I much as I hate to refers to the dreadful 'Talk to Frank' website - it clearly states:

"Anabolic steroids are Class C drugs to be sold only by pharmacists with a doctor's prescription. It's legal to possess or import steroids as long as they're in the form of a medicinal product for personal use. But possession or importing with intent to supply (which includes giving them to friends) is illegal and could lead to 14 years in prison and an unlimited fine".

Most people don't realise that steroids are a decriminalised recreational drug - but that's exactly what they are.

Drugs prohibition is yet more authoritarian nannying. As our dear leaders apparently feel that even amending the smoking ban to allow choice would be unconscionable, I doubt they would even consider revising the prohibition laws.

But if we do not indicate that this is important, then they'll continue to tell us that "it's not an important issue".

We need more comments on this idea to push it up above other ones when people look for ideas via most comments!

"Most people don't realise that steroids are a decriminalised recreational drug - but that's exactly what they are." Jimbob

yup.

this sort of thing needs to stop
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10472510

So according to the papers we're going to be flooded with super strong "Legal highs".

I can imagine the Daily Fail headlines already.....

They should have legalised the drugs they had all the data on instead and this wouldn't be happening.

Ho hum - thats MP's protecting society then....

Spreading the word:

http://www.politics.co.uk/n[…]-war-on-drugs-$21381761.htm

Advocates of drug law reform had reason to celebrate today after public statements by senior figures in the medical and legal community suggested the argument was turning in their favour.
The chair of the Bar Council argued in his most recent report that decriminalising drug use would have substantial public benefits, while the editor of the British Medical Journal (BMJ), the UK's most well-respected medical publication, came out publicly in support of drug law reform.
The twin developments come at an exciting time for those calling for a more liberal drug policy. Both deputy prime minister Nick Clegg and prime minister David Cameron are on record questioning the effectiveness of Britain's drug laws. Activists hope reform might be in the pipeline.
In his most recent report the chair of the Bar Council, Nicholas Green QC, argued that decriminalising drugs did not lead to greater use and would have the effect of cutting crime.
"A growing body of comparative evidence suggests that decriminalising personal use can have positive consequences; it can free up huge amounts of police resources, reduce crime and recidivism and improve public health," he said.
"All this can be achieved without any overall increase in drug usage. If this is so, then it would be rational to follow suit. And this will save money and mean that there is less pressure on the justice system.
"A rational approach is not usually the response of large parts of the media when it comes to issues relating to criminal justice," he continued.
"This is something the Bar Council can address. We are apolitical; we act for the prosecution and the defence and most of the judiciary are former members. We can speak out in favour of an approach which urges policies which work and not those which simply play to the gallery."
The comments came at the same time as a special edition of the BMJ in which the editor, Fiona Godlee, endorses an article by Steve Rolles of Transform, a group which lobbies for reform of the UK's drugs laws.
"In a beautifully argued essay Stephen Rolles calls on us to envisage an alternative to the hopelessly failed war on drugs," she writes.
"He says, and I agree, that we must regulate drug use, not criminalise it."
Danny Kushlick, head of external affairs at Transform, said: "The war on drugs is in deep crisis. These comments show that support for drug policy reform is becoming more and more mainstream, and fundamental change is now inevitable.
"With a prime minster and deputy prime minister both longstanding supporters of alternatives to the war on drugs, at the very least the government must initiate an impact assessment comparing prohibition with decriminalisation and strict legal regulation."
In 2007, Mr Clegg - then Lib Dem home affairs spokesman - said the "so-called war on drugs is failing" following a critical RSA report into drug prohibition.
David Cameron voted in favour of recommendation 24 in the home affairs committee's inquiry into drug misuse in 2002, which read: "We recommend that the government initiates a discussion within the Commission on Narcotic Drugs of alternative ways-including the possibility of legalisation and regulation-to tackle the global drugs dilemma."
Activists may be disappointed if they expect a sea-change in policy on the back of the coalition government's legislative agenda, however.
While Mr Clegg and Mr Cameron have previously expressed a sympathetic view of the arguments calling for drug law reform, neither will be keen to trigger the media attack which would result from a move to liberalise drug laws.
Recent comments from home secretary Theresa May to the home affairs committee suggest the government is moving in precisely the opposite direction, and is ready to pass legislation allowing for temporary bans to be imposed on legal highs while the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) establishes their legal status.

Liberal drug laws- is the Czech Republic the Amsterdam of the East?

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,5815996,00.html

http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.[…]ds#comment_1279628939338818

I don't want to take drugs, but very simply, it should not be for the state to decide how I treat my body.

newscientist from yesterday
http://www.newscientist.com[…]C-rss&nsref=online-news

It should also be remembered that this submission is not ONLY talking about cannabis, and many of the other closed submissions redirected to the 'cannabis' submission were actually related to other drugs.

Understanding how and why these harmful, vindictive and counter productive laws against some drugs and their users even exist, is key to understanding why successive governments are unwilling to even address the drug problems the laws (not the drugs) have created.

The policy and laws themselves are the drug problem.

Decades have passed since the early drug laws found their corrupt, destructive way into statute and a generation has passed away that knew anything but this nonsense.

Now we have a population growing up knowing nothing else, conditioned from birth to accept the lies and propaganda as fact and the hatred and vindictive persecution as normal and necessary.

The swordid introduction of early drug laws are well documented though seldom if ever mentioned or debated. Perhaps because they are embroiled in deceipt, greed, politics, money and race hatred and are not something the current crop of political leaders, law makers and power players find comfortable truths to handle.

Read the following and maybe do some internet searching to further understand and uncover the quite disgusting and tragic nature of the prohibition of some drugs, how the pharmaceutical & oil industry have their grubby finger prints all over the drug war.

http://www.rockefellerdrugwars.com/index.html

Political leaders and all the other players in so called power, who peddle the drug war lies and perpetuate these truly destructive laws and the misery they impose should be exposed and shamed.

Transform Wednesday, July 21, 2010

Georgia becomes the first country to sign the Vienna Declaration

The First Lady of Georgia announced at a breakfast event at the AIDS 2010 conference today that Goergia would sign the Vienna Declaration, the first country to do so. It is the official declaration of the XVIII International AIDS Conference (AIDS 2010).

Can anyone still believe that Great Britain was once Great?

We have countries like Portugal, Czech Republic and now Georgia leading the way on drug laws and policies whilst not-so-great-anymore Britain continues to avoid reviewing drug policies opting for 'more of the same'.

Even the USA are voting on whether or not to legalise cannabis in California!

Can we please catch up with the 21st Century Mr Cameron?

Another major moment of FAIL - for the prohibitionists.

http://www.thescottishsun.c[…]n-drugs-top-cops-admit.html

All my friends are saying Class-A drugs have never been so cheap or so easy to get so for once I believe what the papers say.

Unless something radical is done soon this is all going to get out of hand.

'Let the people know the truth and the country is safe.' - Abraham Lincoln

http://www.youtube.com/watc[…]amp;feature=player_embedded

THIS IS AMERICA'S WAR ON DRUGS.

THE MAN WAS ARRESTED FOR A SMALL AMOUNT OF CANNABIS.
NO OTHER LAW WAS BROKEN.

THE FAMILY PET WAS SHOT DEAD(THANKFULLY WE CAN ONLY HEAR IT HAPPEN)
HIS WIFE AND KIDS WERE TRAUMATISED FOR LIFE.

ALL FOR A BAG OF WEED...

'Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.'
J.F.K

AS WE HAVE BECOME A 'JUNIOR PARTNER', IS THIS THE FUTURE OF THE UK LAW ENFORCEMENT!?

THIS COMMENT MAY BE REMOVED BY THE MODERATORS, BUT NOT THE TRUTH!

Totally agree. What drugs people take are their own business and should not be interdicted by government. There are many perfectly legal and equally or more harmful prescription drugs sold by the pharmaceutical industry, yet these are given no scrutiny. What hypocrisy!

I have never understood this need to arbitrarily label certain drugs illegal and others legal. The best example is cannabis. The US decided to conduct it's own private morality war against it, and the UK the ever diligent puppet, adopted the same policy with little to no research, and the research which has been done, has quite clearly shown it to be less harmful than alcohol and cigarettes. It reminds me of the prohibition in america, where the moral right took it upon themselves to outlaw a substance that a majority of the population has tried, and in the same way fails to address the fact the people don't want or need prohibition.

Why should a small elite of politicians decide something which so manifestly conflicts with the will of the people. Even obama and america are moving towards legalisation for personal use, so why can't the UK show the same kind of forward thinking and do the same? I imagine in a hundred years from now people will wonder why there was such a stigma about personal choice of drugs and the unnecessary interventions of the state.

I had the same argument at my doctors.

Due to a bad fall my GP had been prescribing co-codamol 30/500's (2 four times a day) + Amitriptyline - he repeat prescribed them for six months ignoring my requests for Sativex (See GW Pharm') - finally I got to see another doctor and he went mental and told me to stop taking them as soon as possible but it took me weeks to get un-hooked (with terrible withdrawal symptoms) - I'm now just about managing with a tens machine and Paracetamol.

I used to smoke fags but quit first attempt, used illegal drugs in the 80's and never had any of the problems I had with a completely legal prescription drug this year.

The other doctor saw my requests for Sativex on my record and said I had no chance as my LHA is refusing to pay for it and he thought it was a rip-off anyway. He said "off the record - cannabis would do just as good a job for what I had".

Pity I cannot risk a criminal record with the job I do - so when the tens machine isn't enough I have a choice, addictive pain killers or risk criminalisation for a plant.

Prohibition is morally wrong.

Today I spotted a poster at the local chemist warning of Anthrax contamination in Heroin and that users may die from it.

Nothing in the press or on the news or from the government - shows how much they are bothered about drug users. If it was the bankers/stockbrokers favorite "Coke" I bet it would be different (probably not after the mess they got the country into).

They couldn't care less if "Druggies" are being poisened by the crap dealers put in drugs (or they would have made this a health issue years ago).

That is until it's their innocent son/daughter who's ill then it's the fault of drugs & so the myths & hysteria are self perpetuating.

Excuse spelling/rambling as I've had a few beers - but that's OK because it's legal.

Mo Mowlam former MP and cabinet minister from 1997-2001, responsible for the Government's drugs policy from 1999-2001.

“The film Some Like It Hot has a scene when one Chicago gang is gunned down by another. The film is a comedy, drawing humour from the absurdity of the years of prohibition in the US, when alcohol was made illegal. Of course this did not stop drinking, it merely pushed it underground. The bar was replaced with the speakeasy. The legitimate supplier of booze was replaced by the gangster. A whole new criminal element was added to society that not only corroded the drink business, but also brought intimidation, violence and corruption into previously clean activities, for example in the rise of protection rackets. Today we laugh at films that portray that era, while ignoring the reality of such a situation existing and growing within our own society.
Drugs in this country are almost more freely available than alcohol: their supply is not constrained by licensing laws, large numbers of people smoke marijuana, particularly teenagers and young people, and a lot also take ecstasy and cocaine. They are not criminals; they are people you know. They are people who are likely to be sitting next to you at work, or living in your homes. But all these people are being brought into almost daily contact with organised crime. Isn't this a most foolish situation?
Please can we begin to hear some good sense from No 10 and the Home Office, and let's start looking at how drugs can be legalised and our society can be decriminalised. Let's recognise reality and start to reduce the numbers who are cluttering up our prisons. Let's start selling drugs through outlets such as off-licences, where the likelihood of dealing with someone holding a gun is virtually zero, unlike the street traders of today. Let's admit that we are getting it wrong, by allowing our fear and prejudice against certain drugs to drive us to pursue wrongheaded policies which only produce damaging social results."

Source: quoted from “Better drugs laws will cut gun crime - Let's recognise reality and start selling the stuff at off-licences” The Guardian 09.01.03

RIP Mo Mowlam.

Those who havnt voted for this petition:

http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.[…]me-lines-as-the-netherlands

Please do as we need to unite under one petition to get the most votes and comments. We need to start turning heads people! Legalise cannabis 2010!

Drugs have always been around, and they will certainly ever remain. To pretend that both users and non-users will be better protected because some of them are impure, very expensive and sold by criminals (who are, by the way, indistinguishable from undercover police and plain businessmen) is simply ridiculous, and yet more so when the street supply grows year after year.

The obvious result is a growing output of crimes and illiterate youngsters, who use the illicit substances partly as an adulthood initiation rite, and partly as an alibi that suggests declaring oneself irresponsable, unfree, victim of a chemical devil. This is very comfortable at such a critical moment of life, in which they should rather learn responsability, imitating the abnegation displayed by their elders with them.

 So the true option is not vice as opposed to law and order. The real choice is between an irrational consumption of adulterated products, compared to an informed use of pure drugs.

Demonizing drugs has only made us more helpless, more cruel towards our fellowmen and more idiotic in the original sense of the word -for idiotés means in classical Greek a person who blindly delegates to others the care of public things.

Not only our well-being, but the well-being of our sons and grandsons, depends on disseminating patterns of sobria ebrietas, which reconsider the use of psychoactive drugs as a moral and aesthetical challenge, essentially related to the adventure of knowledge -and also as a palliative for difficult parts of our existence, and for bitter lives.

 In other words, we should dignify what is now debased, in order to cope with the generalized delusion and abuse created by the prohibitionist experiment.

Let us not forget the lessons of History, old and modern, concerning the varieties of religious, therapeutic and recreative use of very different types of drugs. The experiment is not to reform our laws and present attitude concerning them. The experiment is prohibition itself, a unique enterprise in the universal annals.

The fact is that experiments constitute an interrogation directed to nature, to understand more precisely its fabric, and the war against drugs is a particular experiment that sooner or later will serve the basic purpose of experimental reason. In other words, it will be stored as a rich source of psychological, social and economic consequences, enhancing the perception of our world, and the inherent limits of coertion. This is the positive result adscribed to any failure.

Dependency. A subjective word with ambiguity in tow. There are two sides to all words, most of all, this one.

I’ll spare you the obligatory dictionary definitions and indulge in a brief summary of me. 30 years is hard to be concise with, so bare with me.

My name is Jason, I am from the UK. Since the age of 8 I have been ill, I have had all tests known to man and even some reserved for pets; I of course jest but when you’re the business end of a probe, fleeting thoughts do go through your mind like a freight train without a destination.

I am now 30, and have the proud accolade of having my diagnosis for 20 years. However, it is not a diagnosis I am happy with, don’t get me wrong, it’ll do, but the world, or at the very least, my country, does not seem to accept my diagnosis and therefore I am the butt of many a joke. I can take that, I’ve had the training to take abuse, I used to be a musician.

You see, when I was 12, I had the privilege of being one of the first to be diagnosed with Myalgic Encephalomyelitis, or M.E for short. This later took a rebrand and I think we call it Chronic Fatigue Syndrome now. It has been suggested I also have Fibromylagia amongst other things, but I no longer have the mind for labels. Jaded I may be, but I am not yet bitter. I should explain shouldn’t I?

Picture the scene; I’m 5 years old and decide to follow in my brother’s footsteps and I take up the toughest martial art (subjectively) known… it must be the toughest, Wikipedia and the Discovery Channel says so, must be true then? The point of the desultory ramble is that my mind, thankfully, has never been under question. I reached a high standard in karate, I was on course to be the youngest black belt in the country. With this eastern teaching under my literal belt, I forever learnt the ways of my own body and mind.

When I first started to fall ill, it was a shock to everyone. Being of strong mind (or so I thought) I pushed on through the warnings the body sent me. Eventually, to cut a long story short, I ended up with my diagnosis of M.E. The illness had a stigma, and still does. Even then I asked, “Can I please have something different?” I didn’t know what, just anything other than the joke illness. I once had Bursitus of the foot, I could cope with that, it sounded so much “cooler” to adolescent ears.

I was the proverbial Guinea pig. I’m sure there is a vault in some barren medical facility with my case notes in under lock and key in some kind of Area 51 type setup… here’s hoping anyway. It is no word of a lie that I ended up teaching the medical profession much about the condition. A typical session would entail five minutes discussing my pain and problems; the next hour was reserved for Dr’s question time regarding my odd practices. I have tried every known therapy and drug that would be of remote benefit; my odd body rejected 90% of all things ingested. A small fortune has been spent on every known therapy going. I won’t bore you with the list, suffice to say I have but two that I have not yet tried; leeches and a Shaman.

My family Doctor used to keep a journal on the odd side effects and me:

“Dr, please don’t put me on anti depressants, I’m not depressed.”

“No Jason, it’s alright, they’re muscle relaxants.”

The Next Week.

“So, how are they working Jason?”

“Um, you really want to know Dr? They’ve given me incredibly bad dreams, sweats, and I now have numb hands and feet. That normal?”

“Umm, no.”

The numb hands and feet lasted about two years. It was great fun when used correctly as a child with mischief in mind.

Then, one appointment to sort out my incredibly sore throat:

“Ok Jason, we’ve booked you in to have your tonsils out, they’re really inflamed. We know this will set you back in your illness, but we thinks it’s for the best.”

“Um, Dr? I had my tonsils out when I was 6.”

“You sure? Let me have a look… oh, they’ve grown back, that’s unusual. Good news though, we won’t book you in to have them out again, they’ve grown back, so keep them this time.”

This was path of the course with me, if there was a medical exception to the rules; I stumbled across it giddily and gleefully.

The list is both endless and far-fetched to say the least. The worst one being the time I went blind for a week:

“Dr, these eye drops you’ve given me, I don’t think they like me.”

“WOAH! Jason, umm, you’re eyes have swelled like beach balls, do you know this?”

“I have a fair idea yes Dr, if I could actually see, I could have a full panorama of this room like an iguana, trust me, I’m aware. What can you do, I’m a tad scared truth be told.”

“Umm, well, could I take a picture for my journal?”

“You joking Dr? Well, I can hear you getting your camera out so guess not, can I fix my hair?”

“No. say cheese.”

I found but one drug that didn’t turn me into an alien, and that was a painkiller, a high dose and addictive one at that. The side effects? Well, I don’t want to address them, merely writing them will remind me of mortality more than I need to. I know not to rely on them, I know they carry a death sentence, but I have to take them if I want any degree of life. Catch 22 I guess you would call it. I cannot even think about going to the dentist, this way madness lay, the set back is famously bad.

The years rolled by, the condition worsened. At points, with uncertainty still hanging over me, it was fleetingly questioned if I was terminal. My weight plummeted, pain overrode my body like a symphony of agony. I was the face at school no-one saw, a shadow, mere rumour of “that boy”. Suffice to say, my family suffered with me. The support they have given has never been in doubt, I am blessed to have never been questioned by them; when my true self is known, it is of assurance that I never have had to justify to them, they know me too well to know I would settle. This notion truly does help when the world flippantly dismisses without knowing me.

I missed all of my high school, I took it upon myself to self educate, and I continue to live by this ethos. I have a passion for learning and do so each and every day. My family never feared for my future, they could see my mind ticked over in it’s own merry way… it is actually official I have an unusual mind, I have discovered this through copious amounts of scans and tests. Again, another superfluous by product of illness. Woo Hoo!

Come my teenage years with little to no social interaction, I had a spell of better health, things were looking up. I had always wanted to join the military, and suddenly this did not look such a pipe dream.

I sort solace in arts, I became an active musician. At the age of 21 I was finally starting to see the aspects of the world I had never seen. I was in a band, we were gigging every week, and I got to see people! People! I have always been considered a social person, so to entertain a crowd was indeed a welcome part of my life. However, it was ALL I could do. I had to rest before, after, during, and once I even played a Beatles song whilst sitting on the floor (long story).

The rock and roll lifestyle looked very different from my view, I have never been able to drink alcohol, and as for any other drug, well, I think we all know by now that this was an unfathomable thought to process. I was not putting ANYTHING into my body, it may well turn me into a lizard again; and that’s if I’m lucky. I plodded on in this manner for nearly five years, earning a good reputation along the road. I became known in my own little way; recluse by week, come the weekend night-time… I was a rock star. Well, a budget rock star to say the least. Rock stars don’t take “rests”.

Halfway through my gigging life, my health started to fail once more. Pain was getting increasingly hard to ignore. I would push through anything anyone would throw at me, but when the mind is willing and the body is not, you can’t ignore the messages. Weight started falling off me once again. It started to look like I was going to have to give up my one release, music was draining too much from me.

A concerned friend suggested cannabis. Now, I had considered myself stringently in the “anti” camp. Never did I want to consider putting a harmful and illegal drug into my body. I had never broken the law, granted, I never had the chance to break the law, but I still never have. I reached a bargain with my friend, I agreed to research it for myself and make up my own mind. Knowing how much I enjoyed learning, my friend had me hook line a sinker.

I will spare the lesson on cannabis, suffice to say I could talk at length, but the level of misinformation and, dare I say it, lies that I found was an eye opener in the very literal sense. My jaw dropped with each new piece of research I read. If nothing else, my mind works, and I was quick enough to work out the propaganda from the truth.

I reluctantly agreed to try cannabis. Obtaining it was a different matter, I simply did not walk in the circles needed to purchase it, and as a rock musician, and this is shameful.

In an effort to be concise in this tale, I embarked on a trial of cannabis. Limited dose, under strict supervision. It was a miracle to me. For the first time in living memory I began to feel normal. Words would be no good to explain this feeling, it is an emotive ache that cannot be described. At last, I had found my miracle.

I was back in the game, I was on my feet in a inordinately quick period of time. I reserved cannabis for the end of each day, the light at the end of each arduous tunnel. My weight stabilised, and my energy was on the rise. I could once again plough my efforts into music, and dare I hope, making a career out of it and obtaining independence for the first time?

Four years rolled by, all was good. Very good in fact; I had long resigned myself to the thought that I would not get involved with the opposite sex, I felt it was unfair for both me and anyone who would be caught up in my web of nonconformity. I could offer nothing to a girlfriend. However, throwing caution to the wind, I spied someone. She fit the template I had always held in my head, she was hard to ignore. We met, we hit it off, we ended up together. It was unexpected all round, and I resisted it in the beginning. My conscience couldn’t cope with luring this innocent girl into my war zone of a world. She forced her way in.

My girlfriend was incredibly anti cannabis, her Nan had died from lung cancer only a few years previous. Years of tobacco smoking had cut her time short. The scar remained ingrained on my girlfriend, they were close. I had to hide my limited cannabis use from her, this caused much friction. Lies are lies no matter how they are told, and she could see I was not being truthful. Although I would never touch tobacco, the action of smoking was all the stigma needed.

We are now in recent times. My supply of cannabis was getting increasingly hard to get hold of. My intake was highly limited from the very start, but I was running out of options. Suffice to say, it ran out and I had to give up my music hopes. This was a very hard period for all concerned. The one part of life I managed to ring out of my sodden body was left to dry on the wayside. The band I was in came to an end, and I was left to forge a recovery.

Eventually, my girlfriend became my partner (it’s “the more grown up term”) and I told her the truth about how cannabis is my miracle. This caused many a friction, she had led a very sheltered life and believed all she had been told, as did I in the beginning. We had rocky times, but through education, her eyes became open to the idea.

I managed to find supplies in drips and drabs, and each time my “partner” could see just how well it worked. She had her boyfriend, sorry, “partner” back!

Being largely housebound all my life, we actually managed to have days out as for our vacation. I would rest before and after, and would use my painkillers sparingly to get through. We had some good days. Time was limited, we only managed a few hours each day, but they were worth it.

One Christmas, we had the perfect day. I had some cannabis, and she asked me if I could ingest some in the morning so we could get out. I did, and it was the enough for us to have our day. We went to a castle that we are 10 minutes away from, the castle and it’s land were all in decoration, the land was festive. We danced up the walkway whilst Christmas music played to us and the snow fluttered. It was our Bob Hope and Bing Crosby moment. We were but one giant chorus line away from perfection. This memory still remains with us both. One day it may have been, but it meant so much more.

Cannabis ran out in the new year, and in an effort to seek relief and legality, I tried a “legal high”. I was dubious to say the least, I do not trust easily, and rightly so. No research had been done on this substance, but, the years were rolling by, and my dreams were lowering. As a youngster I wished for an adventurers life once I was “better”. Then, I wished for rock stardom with my tongue in cheek. This turned into simply to make a living from music. At this point in time though, I was nearly 30, and without hope for the first time in a long time. Desperation is a strange bedfellow to reason. I tried the legal high. It nearly killed me, and gave me the worst night of my life.

So, I was back to painkillers alone, and this was both not going to give me a life, and in fact, would eventually take it away from me. In an effort to save my sanity and due to the fact that pain was no longer relenting, I ploughed my time into my laptop revolution, and researched EVERY angle of cannabis. A year of solid research has given me much knowledge, but still, it cannot supply me with the actual plant.

his fully brings us up to date with my situation, as I write this I will be 30 in a few days, and I have never been more uncertain. My music career has been on hold for 3 years now, and I miss it like any drug dependency. My partner has bought a house for us to start out life, and as my dreams lower to meet the boundary of what IS possible, all I yearn for is to be able to give my partner a family like she deserves and we both wish for, and to give her the normality I have never been able to achieve. I have never been able to accompany her to a function, I am her imaginary boyfriend, a figment of her over eager mind, a ghost again.

In further efforts to keep hope alive, and to give my mind something to focus on while I drift to sleep each night instead of the foreboding open ended situation I am in, I wrote a novel. To say it has been a lifeline is an understatement. Although the tale of my novel is removed from sanity, it certainly saved mine.

I have looked into growing my own cannabis. THIS is now the dream, this is the dream that would give me all I desire. I could say with complete certainty that I could forge a recovery unparalleled. I would not go as far to say a “full” recovery, but I truly believe this is actually possible. You see, peace of mind counts for a lot in this life, and without wishing to fall into the pitfalls of self-pity, I have never had peace of mind, it simply has not had the chance to develop. I yearn independence, both financially and otherwise, but I am given no means to achieve this, my government has not and will not help in anyway. I feel they are but waiting for me to see out my days. Cannabis could hand me the chance I have never had.

I have tried everywhere and every scheme to find work, but with any fluctuating illness, I do not fit in the modern world. Give me a task, I assure you I will do it, and to the very best of my ability, but, it would have to be on my time. Employers don’t like to take a punt in life, and who can blame them. So, I will continue to try and promote my novel, and brainstorm myself to sleep each night.

My partner has a very respectable job, and as much as it has torn us up to the point of breaking, and we still continue to break, she just cannot give me the green light to grow in her house. If all the onus was on me, I would take the chance in a second, but with UK laws that enforce cannabis to the letter, and indeed have stepped up the war, my partner would suffer unimaginable consequence. I too would face the risk of full prosecution. Prison would kill me it is fair to say, but I must roll the dice and take my chances.

No solution is there for my outlet for cannabis. It remains illusive, and the pain grows. I have been strong all my life; I would not show you a grimace. Ask me how I feel, the answer would be a cordial “I’m fine thanks.” But, the folly is getting harder to maintain, pain is starting to travel further and harder.

So, now, I’m 30, with an empty house awaiting my attention that I cannot give it, awaiting a coat of paint before anyone can move in and awaiting a family to fill the gaps. I’m not sure I will ever get to that house. I’m not sure if I will ever get my novel in print, and I’m not too sure if I’ll ever see a change in laws. As a patriot who has played by the rules all my life, I feel betrayed. I wish to turn my back on my country fully. If I COULD emigrates, I would in a heartbeat, alas, that is not a viable option, I can offer no country skills or money. So, I remain, housebound and with a future unwritten, I have tried to tell my partner to leave me for her own sake, she will not, I guess her life will forever be on hold also. I cannot even offer her a vacation. I have never been out of this country, she deserves better than this fate.

I will carry on my fight, I seek to educate whether I can about cannabis. Although it is a tragic thought, it is of some comfort to know I am not alone in my situation, many of us go through this very real hell, and when it is avoidable, it is hard to take. I fight for these people also; with every part of me I fight.

What was it I said at the start of all this, if anyone can remember that far back? Umm, oh yes, well, I guess it could act as my closing line as well as my opening. Cannabis, speaking from someone who has never really had it to the degree needed to hand me my life for the first time:

Dependency. A subjective word with ambiguity in tow. There are two sides to all words, most of all, this one.

Don’t blame me for the hand fate dealt me; it’s an easy way out to think I enjoy this,

I don’t ask for sympathy from you or the devil, you’re a rolling stone? Well I’ll have to give that a miss.

Remember when you were at school at had the time of your life? Or was it great to shed its binds?

Remember the leaving party and all of your conquests? I can’t recall, I was fighting my own war behind my enemy lines.

I was the face you didn’t get to see, I was having my tests and exams as you did too,

Mine were overnight stays with no results, only varying degrees of “nobody knew.”

Remember when you had your first day of work and went to the pub for relief and drinks?

I was not there, home again panicking at night when the mind won’t close and over thinks.

Remember when you thought that you would not be caught dead like me and would get well?

Well, walk a mile, and fight my fight… the mind never loses faith, but the lucid fatigue refuses to quell.

How long have you lived now, how many birthday’s have you seen and had laid on?

Mines 30 years now, and each milestone is marked with the rungs of the ladder stepped upon.

Begrudge me relief, begrudge me a life? You’ll see a smile before a grimace I assure you,

Hold my piece of normality against me, I won’t complain, I can’t spare the mind, too true.

Convict me for a crime of wanting to be released for just an hour a day, a chance for life?

My body rejects everything you can take, each movement feels like a frenzy… an iced knife.

You’ll hear a compliment before you’ll hear me complain, a very real and lifelike hell,

Close the door on me, but I’ll still be here doing all the right things and fighting beyond the next bell.

So the 'war on drugs' has not provided any noticeable benefits in the past 40 years since introduced.

At what point does the government accept this and take steps towards legalisation – looking at other countries that have taken those steps already and have proven positive results?

Why are our government not held accountable to show results and quantifiable benefits for Billions they spend every year on the War on Drugs?

Whilst it was good to read Mo Mowlem's comments from 09.01.03 posted by OllyMolly, that was 7 years ago and we're STILL in exactly the same situation.

PROHIBITION DOES NOT WORK - TRY SOMETHING RADICAL INSTEAD.

But penrhos, it is prohibition that is the 'radical' policy, and people should understand this.

A state that criminalises a large percentage of it's population for possessing something relatively harmless, and in many instances, extremely beneficial, is pretty radical.
It's pretty radical and draconian to lock addicts in jail, when they need help, and jail only exacerbates their problems.

Look at it this way, if we criminalised the possession of alcohol would that not be 'radical'?! Obviously, it is partly semantics, but the prohibitionists have played the semantics card for far too long.

Prohibition is a failed piece of opressive legislation.

One day soon people will talk about it in the same way the do about apartide.

Watch "The union" for an explanation of the historical reason why cannabis is illegal.

I strongly support this contribution. Ultimately what substances we put into our bodies should be a matter for us, not for the government.

There are many practical arguments too. The 'war on drugs'

- Makes using drugs a lot more dangerous;
- Funds organised crime;
- Is inconsistent with scientific studies on harm;
- Is based on misinformation, which undermines good quality drug education;
- Unjustly targets certain groups of people (those who are more likely to be stopped and searched);
- Criminalises people who are otherwise positive members of society;
- Does not take into account the many life-enriching or therapeutic benefits that drugs can have for people;
- Holds back research;
- Is expensive and difficult to enforce anyway.

I don't believe a more liberal drug policy would end social problems with drugs, but it could reduce them significantly. Perhaps more importantly it would shift the role of government to supporting its citizens to live their lives to the full, however they choose to do it, rather than making those decisions for them.

All credits to Martin Luther King RIP. Just a bit of fun:

Two score years ago, an American President, Richard Nixon, started the War on Drugs. This came at a time when American was entrenched in a foreign war in Vietnam, opposed by those who chose drugs that the sate did not approve.
Forty years later, the life of the cannabis drug user is still sadly crippled by the manacles of criminalisation, and the chains of discrimination. Forty years later, the responsible drug user lives on a lonely island of stigmatisation in the midst of a vast ocean of state sanctioned alcohol abuse. Forty years later, the responsible drug user is still marginalised in the corners of society forever under threat of prosecution under the law.
So today we have come here to ‘Your Freedom’ to dramatize an appalling condition. In a sense we have come to social media to cash a cheque. When invited to demand our civil liberties back, it is obvious today that GB has defaulted on their civil liberties as far as her citizens that use cannabis are concerned.
Great Britain has given cannabis users a bad cheque which has come back marked “insufficient funds”. But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation.
So we have come to cash this cheque, a cheque that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice. We have also come here to remind our Government of the fierce urgency of now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of criminality to the sunlit path of equality before the law, education and regulation. Now is the time to open the doors of education and opportunity to all of God's children. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quicksands of prohibition to the solid rock of scientific evidence, state control and regulation
It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment and to underestimate the determination of the responsible drug user. This sweltering summer of the peaceful drug user’s legitimate discontent will not pass until there an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. Two thousand and ten is not an end, but a beginning. Those who hope that the responsible drug user needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual. There will be neither rest nor tranquility in Great Britain until the responsible drug user is granted his citizenship rights.
The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges. But there is something that I must say to my people who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice. In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred.
We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force.
We cannot walk alone. And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall march ahead. We cannot turn back. There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, "When will you be satisfied?" we can never be satisfied as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, belong to ourselves. We cannot be satisfied as long as the medical cannabis user can self treat without fear of arrest. We can never be satisfied as long as users and addicts are treated as criminals no matter how responsible they might be. No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.
I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great trials and tribulations. Some of you have come fresh from narrow cells. Some of you have come from areas where your quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of stigmatisation and staggered by the winds of police brutality and corruption. You have been the veterans of creative suffering. Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive.
Go back to Manchester, go back to Bristol, go back to Edinburgh, go back to London, go back knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed. Let us not wallow in the valley of despair. I say to you today, my friends, that in spite of the difficulties and frustrations of the moment, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the dream of all libertarians and advocates of science.
I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal." I have a dream that one day in the historic halls and passageways of Westminster we can have honest debates about drug use. I have a dream that one day even the city of Glasgow, a precipitous city, a city rained on with poverty and addiction, will be transformed into a city of compassion and justice. I have a dream that my future children will one day live in a nation where they will be able to make informed and educated decisions about drug use and their relative harms, and choose to walk a different path. I have a dream today.
I have a dream that one day the coalition Government, whose Home Secretary’s lips are presently dripping with the words of prohibition and punishment will be transformed into a situation where drug use can be distinguished from drug misuse. I have a dream today.
I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together. This is our hope. With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.
This will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with a new meaning, "My country, 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring." And if Great Britain is to be a great nation, this must become true. So let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of Yorkshire. Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of Wales. Let freedom ring from the snow-capped mountains of Scotland! Let freedom ring from the curvaceous peaks of Cumbria! Let freedom ring from every hill and every molehill of Monmouthshire. From every mountainside, let freedom ring.
When we let freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every county and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, will be able to join hands and sing, "Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"

With the latest government statitics stating only £1 is recovered for every £15 spent by SOCA & that Theresa May stated today that she wanted "common sense policing" and measures to tackle "Problem drinking" then it is even more important that we push home that most drugs do not cause the issues alcohol does and for the majority of users the worst side-effect is getting caught.

BTW : Don't forget to watch "our drugs war" on C4 at 8PM on the 2nd August (will probably be as good as "sex education Vs porn" on wed at 10PM) - I love C4.

We can all add to the discussion on here afterwards.

It will never happen. People are too gullible when it comes to media...and they like to think it somehow affects their existence.

The biggest problem with hard-drug use is the fact that the corporate governments have made them illegal. Making it necessary for users to steal and ignore the basic physical needs, in order to be able to afford the highly overprized and impure substances.
Pure and affordable, available drugs do not generally lead to the deterioration observable in users who need to take chemically impure drugs from illegal sources in shady circumstances.

The biggest problem people have is the utterly sick society, which drives people to drugs by it's impersonal standardization of norms and values which are schewed and just plain wrong.

The money-oriented work ethics, the mind numbing useless entertainment and the industries making mostly unnecessary products and polluting technology and the class-based hierarchical structures of our 'society' ARE the cause of most diseases...as 99% of disease comes from a mental imbalance due to lack of sense of self.

We get taught from a young age that we should be submissive and well-behaved little nobodies who need to disappear in avergaeness and accept and adapt to demons, in stead of getting to discover our own unique values and develop our own strong personality.

I think the focus on using psychedelics for only medicinal purposes, as seems to be the case in scientific circles nowadays, is a short-sighted misinterpretation of reality. We need cures only when the basic need for psychedelics in our diet is ignored.

Psychedelics can do much more good when we use them to create self-realized individuals who, from a highly developed personal sense of self-worth, automatically reject demons and do not contract disease.

The whole structure of modern society is based upon submission to an elite which is parasitical and a way of Life which is destructive for the environment.

Society itself needs to be healed, so we can begin using entheogens for what they were made for: communion with the spirits of Nature and our fellow tribesmen. We need to again become a part of Nature, instead of nurturing the psychotic idea that we are above Nature and can use Nature as our 'resource' for feeding imbalance, injustice and greed.

Modern society is a psychopathic horror. Completely perverted and unconnected to Natural reality. A disease in itself. It has become an all-devouring parasitical cancer, which by it's behaviour is self-destructive, in the end.

Most drugs are not totally destructive, when quality and availablity are high. When the social stigma is removed. When social values and ethics are not based upon people being productive little ants creating riches for the already rich and super-rich. When the highest goal is not material wealth, popularity and power.
The need for drugs is based upon people's personal sense of value.
When we are accepted for who we are, as we are.

The entheogenic plants in Nature are here for our enjoyment, for keeping us within the womb of Nature, comfortable in our nurturing Natural environment.
Law, order, regulatory and hierarchical structures are a perversion of the Natural sense of good and bad.

When we forget the basic unity and equality of every living being, the innate value of life, we need and long to be herded and controlled.

Shamanic, regular use of entheogenics as a basic part of our diet keeps us in a mutually supportive balance with Nature.

Then we dont need healing, because we will be whole and healers ourselves..

People feel the need for 'drugs' because they have an instinctive pull towards substances to re-align the psyche with their environment. An imbalanced psychotic environment leads to the necessity to use deleterious drugs to become imbalanced and psychotic. It's as simple as that.

I fail to understand why the last government ignored the sound advice of Professor Nutt and reclassified cannabis. It is time for a evidence based honest review of our whole drugs policy and for the government to take a new approach not based on the sensationalist press and general ignorance of the facts - prohibibition does not work as has been proven time and time again.
The most damaging drugs available in our society today are alcohol and tobacco.
Legalise and control the supply - and take the taxes from this which would remove the huge black market trade in drugs then put the money raised into helping the most serious addicts (alcohol and hard drugs) to recover.

This is certainly a law which urgently needs repealing. This was a significant landmark in the process stripping away our liberty.

As has already been pointed out though this will never happen. It will not even be considered. People need to come to terms with the nature of the state in which they live.

Repealing this law and opening up these markets would certainly be good for the economy. It would not be good for big business though. It would not facilitate the transfer of wealth from the working and middle class(which we should refer to as the slave class) to the biggest members financial services 'industry'. In fact it might even provide a means to create wealth that is not easily controlled and transfered.

The events of the last couple of years should have made it clear to everyone that we live under a form of economic fascism. Some call it farcism which seems quite fitting. This is now deeply embedded in our economic system. Even our money is fake. The reason we use fake money is to transfer wealth from the creators to the thieves. Most people dont even know what money is. The situation is rather hopeless.

My main point though is it does not matter how much sense repealing this law makes. How much good it might do. What matters is how it will affect our corporate masters - big business. As it would be detrimental to these entities it will never even be considered. Expect instead more propaganda designed to scare people into believing this law is essential.

Dont expect anything positive from Lib Lab or Con and you will not be disappointed. They are merely different sides of the same coin. Whats important is that we do all we can to look after our fellow citizens and help them when we can and to refuse to comply with morally illegitimate laws such as this as far as is possible considering our responsibilities to each other.

It isn't even that difficult to do.

You weren't bothered about upsetting Israel when in Turkey.
You weren't bothered about upsetting Pakistan when in India.
You shouldn't be bothered about upsetting the Daily Fail in the UK.

Educate, Legalise, Regulate and Tax, all drugs - NOW!

The following quoted from an article elsewhere I feel is interesting in this context:

"
Defined meaning of Rebellion;

Refusal to accept some authority or code or convention.
An act or show of defiance toward an authority or established government.

Defined meaning of Lawful;

Being within the law; allowed by law: lawful methods of dissent. (The lawful refusal to conform to the authority that is unjust)

Under article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 (the founding document of our Constitution) we have a right to enter into lawful rebellion if we feel we are being governed unjustly. Contrary to common belief our Sovereign and her government are only there to govern us and not to rule us and this must be done within the constraint of our Common Law and the freedoms asserted to us by such Law, nothing can become law in this country if it falls outside of this simple constraint.
"

After reading this we should ask ourselves when people are threated with violence and imprisonment for choosing of their own free will to consume a particular substance - who is it that is actually breaking the law.

Perhaps this so called law is itself what is unlawful.

And just to reinforce the point the stated article which google can surely find for you goes on to point out

"
Article 61 shows quite clearly who really holds the power in this country, that being quite simply us the people; we have Sovereignty not any Parliament and nor can this be taken from us by any Parliament who claim to have taken the people’s Sovereignty. As defined above any act passed by a Parliament to remove the power the people possess, or to remove the power from the point of constraint we invested the power in, is invalid as it falls outside of the constraint laid down by Common/Constitutional Law.

This is a simple safeguard put in place to protect our freedoms under said law and to never allow such freedoms to be removed or diminished. So in reality any Act, Statute and subsequent law or legislation formed by these actions, that effects our freedoms asserted to us, is quite evidently unjust, invalid and most certainly illegal.
"

Not that our government seems to be in the least bit concerned with upholding our constitution, though they do seem to be quite keen to rewrite it and hope we forget that we already have one. We are all to blame though for being so lazy as to allow this to happen.

Tasking the police with controlling drug use makes as much sense as ordering the Coast Guard to control diabetes.

The criminal law is a blunt and ineffective tool for controlling private vice, and one which has many unintended and disastrous consequences.

1. By making drugs illegal they assume an aura of forbidden fruit; making them attractive to the very people we most want to prevent from experimentation, teenagers.

2. Just as with alcohol prohibition in the USA, by removing any legal supply of a commodity which is in demand, we create a black market by default, as every society contains a criminal element willing to break through any sanction to supply what is demanded for a profit.

3. Increasing the efforts of law enforcement to stamp out a black market merely acts as a form of natural selection on the dealers, leaving only the most ruthless and violent to continue in business. Wider society suffers as a result of their activity.

4. The high profitability of the drug trade ensures that for every dealer arrested, two new recruits compete for the available market. Since rival dealers cannot use normal channels to settle business disputes they resort to violence. Society suffers as a result. The high profitability of drug dealing undermines the work ethic. Why go to work for minimum wage and slow advancement, when you can make hundreds of pounds at minimum effort selling drugs?

5. The lack of seperation between cannabis and other drugs means that teenagers who experiment with cannabis are at serious risk of being offered other much more dangerous drugs, since the person selling cannabis is as much of a criminal as a cocaine dealer he may as well offer other much more profitable drugs.

5. With every attempt to control and stamp out illegal drugs failing, successive governments become more and more fanatic in their attempts, with the result that police become ever more para-militarised, and civil liberties are lost.

6. Fighting a war against the economic laws of supply and demand is bound to failure, a waste of treasure, highly corrosive to the body politic, and an immense source of corruption.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly:

7. The prohibition of drugs does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to prevent people from using these substances. If you do not use drugs, ask yourself this; is it because they are illegal, and you are dilligently waiting for the law to change, or much more likely because you recognise the harm they can cause, and can think of better ways to spend your time.

Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it. In the early 19th century, when opium smoking was gaining popularity in China, the Emperor took counsel from his mandarins. One party argued for taxation and regulation, the other for prohibition. The prohibitionists won, with the result that the profitability on opium sales to China rose over 1000%. The consequence was an unparalleled wave of smuggling, the penetration of opium to every corner of China, a rate of addiction never seen before or after, and ultimately the collapse of the Manchu dynasty into civil war, invasion and famine. Had the Emperor chosen the pragmatic choice of regulation and control, the use of opium in China would never have followed the course it did.

Here in Britain we seem determined to repeat the same mistakes. The adoption of strictly prohibitionist policies in the 1980's resulted in an unprecedented explosion in drug use, especially heroin, across Britain. Eventually in the 1990's it was recognised these policies were making the situation worse, and pragmatic harm reduction approaches were developed. Now it seems the Coalition wishes to abandon harm reduction and return to a strict abstinence only prohibitionist position. Its time we woke up and realised that drug prohibition is an abject failure, which affects all members of society, whether you use drugs or not. The answer is not tougher laws, or more police, but a regulated supply of drugs to those who need/want them, combined with highly visible public health education to prevent another generation from experimenting.

Take a leaf from the Swiss. They give heroin to addicts in government clinics. Young people dont want to try heroin, as they can visibly see its for sick messed up people queuing at some boring clinic; rather than falling for the fake glamour created by harsh prohibition combined with the latest celebrity drug scandal.

>and ultimately the collapse of the Manchu dynasty into civil war,
>invasion and famine.

It's worth remembering that the British Empire was, at that time, the drug pusher involved and the invasion was ours.

Although I regard this website as more government smoke and mirrors to continue the illusion of democracy that we clearly don't really have, I would like to add my support to this cause anyway as it is something that I feel very strongly about.

I think the suggestions put forward in the initial argument are valid and true, but the fundamental aspect of this issue that most overlook is that the government should not have the power to regulate lifestyle.
How can we say this country is democratic when I can still be criminalised for recreational use of cannabis (or any other recreational substance) just because the powers that be do not understand my lifestyle choices and refuse to even enter into a debate on the issue without resorting to childish scaremongering and misinformation.

Prohibition has never been appropriate, and certainly is an outdated concept in the 21st century.
I, like many many other UK citizens, simply do not recognise the governments authority when it comes to my own lifestyle choices, not to mention that it harbours an "us Vs them" mentality on both sides of the fence.

I will not be holding my breath on this one as I suspect a lot of drug prohibition, cannabis especially, is in place to protect corporate interests rather than the British public.

So this question has already been answered over on the "program for government site"

Quote Nick "hypocrite" Clegg...

"Others, such as legalising drugs like cannabis and revoking the smoking ban are not."

Another U-turn on established lib-dem policy just goes to prove he is just as blue as Dave - your party has lost my vote for good if this does not get the attention it deserves.

>- your party has lost my vote for good if this does not get the
>attention it deserves.

So who are you going to vote for? The only party I know of in favour of legalisation are the Libertarian party who aren't, yet, big on candidates.

I certainly wouldn't call it a U-Turn. Legalisation of all drugs has never been LD policy,

Soupdragon - "I certainly wouldn't call it a U-Turn. Legalisation of all drugs has never been LD policy."

Perhaps not, but they certainly supported moving towards evidence based policies and have repeatedly 'implied' decriminalising cannabis.

To quote some of their 2010 Manifesto (Courtesy of Transform):
 
"Ensure that financial resources, and police and court time, are not wasted on the unnecessary prosecution and imprisonment of drug users and addicts; the focus instead should be on getting addicts the treatment they need. Police should concentrate their efforts on organised drug pushers and gangs."

"Always base drugs policy on independent scientific advice, including making the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs completely independent of government."

"Safeguard academic freedom and the independence of scientific advisers by amending the Ministerial Code to prevent government from bullying or mistreating advisers and distorting evidence or statistics. "

And previously in their 2005 Manisfesto:

"We will concentrate more police efforts on tackling drug traffickers and those drug users who resort to crime to feed their habits, rather than criminalising people possessing cannabis only for their own personal use."

The above comment was then removed due to media uproar.

I certainly will be looking to see how Nick Clegg / the Lib Dems contribute on Drugs Policy during the Coalition government years.

If Clegg does do a total U-turn I also will not be voting Lib Dem again at the next election - even if that means I don't vote!

You could try this lot:

http://lpuk.org/

The trouble is that, at least so far, the freedom to contemplate drug reform seems to be proportional to the distance from real power.

As I explained further up the page, I think I know why that is.

You could try this lot:

http://lpuk.org/

The trouble is that, at least so far, the freedom to contemplate drug reform seems to be proportional to the distance from real power.

As I explained further up the page, I think I know why that is.

You could try this lot:

http://lpuk.org/

The trouble is that, at least so far, the freedom to contemplate drug reform seems to be proportional to the distance from real power.

As I explained further up the page, I think I know why that is.

You could try this lot:

http://lpuk.org/

The trouble is that, at least so far, the freedom to contemplate drug reform seems to be proportional to the distance from real power.

As I explained further up the page, I think I know why that is.

(Great piece of software, don't you think? Each of the above comes from adding a comment and receiving a fault report implying it wasn't posted.

Oh well, takes it up the comment count ratings.)

I check in on the other threads every so often.

MarkS was kind enough to post the following link.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/[…]/

You will notice in "Other Ideas", "Some [ideas for restoring our civil liberties], such as householder protection, are part of our programme for government. Others, such as legalising drugs like cannabis and revoking the smoking ban are not."

It would appear that one of the most commented and best rated and argued proposals on this site is dismissed without debate or explanation.
Everyone who read, commented, argued, and voted; you have been told that your value is nothing. We are being cast aside with the used tissues.

Please express how you feel about this. As loudly, personally, and to as many people as possible.

I'll protest vote Green party instead, even if I end up wearing hemp underware and having to walk to work in sandles.

24 years of lib-dem/liberal support up in cannabis smoke if they don't act NOW.

The irony is that if I get caught what will happen - the government will go from the tax earned on a £40K pa income to it costing tax payers £45K pa to lock me up. You know it makes perfect sense because drugs are bad OK.....

LOLAGE.....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/[…]annabis-cafes.html?ITO=1490

It's in "The Daily Fail" so it must be true!

LOLAGE.....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/[…]annabis-cafes.html?ITO=1490

It's in "The Daily Fail" so it must be true!

The introduction of rationality to the drugs policy and other points of contention was a central issue for MANY Lib Dem voters.

We were lied to. And we have been betrayed.

Tell everyone you meet that the Lib Dems can't be trusted, and explain why.

I think is a shame that Nick Clegg lack the wisdom to heed to advise over these matter.

The rights of the drug user have long been debated, with John Stuart Mill’s principles often cited: that consenting adults should be free to engage in whatever behaviour they wish as long as it does not harm others, and that acting to prevent the individual from harming themselves is not legitimate.

In drug policy debates this is often portrayed as a libertarian position, but viewed more broadly this principle applies to the law with regard to almost all consenting adult risk taking behaviours from freedom over what we eat, what medicines we take, how we consume legal drugs, through to our sexual habits, dangerous sports or other high risk activities, and self harm up to and including suicide - decriminalized in the UK in 1961. So drug laws that criminalize personal use are at odds with the law as it applies to comparable personal choices regarding sovereignty over ones body and freedoms regarding individual risk taking decisions.

There is an important legal distinction to be made between Mala Prohibitum crimes (‘wrong because prohibited’), which only constitute a criminal offence by virtue of statute, and Mala in se crimes where conduct is ‘wrong in itself’. Mala in se crimes include theft, rape and murder around which there is both historical and cross cultural consensus that they violate societies standards – that they are ‘against nature’. Such acts are considered criminal in all states and through-out history and (with few exceptions) there is little debate these are an absolute moral wrong and unacceptable regardless of written law. Mala prohibitum crimes by contrast (including adultery, homosexuality, blasphemy, flag burning, or defying proscriptions on certain foods) lack cross-cultural consensus, vary between states and through legal history, and have been the focus of debate and legal controversy, often witnessing reforms in both directions (even if the trend in the last century has been towards repeal)

Adult consenting drug use clearly comes within the Mala prohibitum sphere, demonstrated by the differences in legal status of drugs (e.g. alcohol and cannabis), the changing legal status of certain drugs (e.g. US alcohol laws), the contrasting drug laws in different states (e.g. cannabis laws in the Netherlands and its neighbours), and the ongoing debate over the criminality of adult consenting use. It is important to note calls to remove the criminality from adult consenting drug use in no way implies support for or justification of Mala in se crimes, such as violence, committed under the influence of drugs, legal or otherwise.

    Arguing for a specific legal right to take drugs (see Newcombe 2007 for example), however, seems unnecessary. The argument is better made with reference to existing legal rights and freedoms. Specifically, the criminalization of adult consenting drug use in many cases violates a number of existing human rights. These include the right to privacy (particularly activities undertaken in private or at home), the right to health (specifically control over personal health), the right to freedom of belief and practice (ritual/traditional/religious use of certain drugs such as peyote, ayuhuasca, and cannabis), and the right to freedom of expression (including free access to information). It is important, however, to stress that any such rights and personal freedoms are not unconditional. Liberty (the National Council for Civil Liberties) explored this when it supported a motion:

        ‘This AGM upholds the right of access of every adult to the lawful supply of psychoactive substances for personal consumption save where expressly constrained by or under the law for the purpose of protecting minors, countering crime, treating addiction, or some other legitimate public purpose and calls on the government to reform the laws accordingly’

    (Liberty AGM 25.6.00)

    This motion summarizes a number of qualifying principles for which societal intervention is justified, over and above the rights of the drug user, as outlined in a briefing by Roger Warren Evans (1999) (that informed the Liberty AGM motion). Evan’s identifies five key qualifying principles:

       1. The maturation of the young: the freedom itself adheres to the mature adult (subject to agreement on age of consent). There is a widespread consensus that the deployment of state resources is fully justified, both by way of positive education and supply constraints, to inhibit the consumption of psychoactive substances by the young.
       2. Contract enforcement: Where an individual has actually agreed not to make use of a psychoactive substance, or any such substances, state intervention is ordinarily justified to enforce that contractual commitment. In some sectors of employment, such constraints are demonstrably expedient: public vehicle drivers of airplanes, trains, coaches, taxis, and other such safety critical positions all accept such constraints, and it is in the public interest that they should be held to their promises. The litmus test is the competence of individuals to perform required tasks, and contractual constraints should not go beyond that;
       3. Criminal law enforcement: The accommodation of psychoactive substances has long been a feature of criminal justice. For example, it is settled law that intoxication cannot be used as a defense, where other breaches of the law are alleged. It must also be evident that the administration of psychoactive substances without consent is and should remain a serious trespass to the person. Finally, difficult judgments have to be made where the consumption of psychoactive substances coincides with the presence of any underlying mental condition. These examples, properly understood, all affirm the principle of individual freedom, and reflect its proper reconciliation with other legitimate societal interests.
       4. Constraint upon social interaction: There are examples of circumstances where drug consumption may properly be constrained by law, eg where the consumption is in public or otherwise obtrusive to others, or where (even if in private) the consumption forms part of a wider pattern of collective behavior with adverse consequences. It is for each society, in each age, to define the principles of intervention where others, who may be considered ‘at risk’, are involved. The principle is difficult to apply, and several applications have been contentious Nevertheless, although particular examples may be controversial, the principle of legitimate state intervention is not refuted.
       5. Public health: There are clearly circumstances where overriding considerations of public health justify state intervention and the abridgement of individual rights – the concept of public health based regulation under which some activities and/or products may remain prohibited and subject to legal sanction. These are well developed and widely understood in the context of the thousands of legal drugs (and other dangerous products, services and activities). It is right that society should at all times ensure that risks to consumers of substantial harm should be avoided.

     Evans goes on to argue that:

    'These five propositions are simply stressing that the right-to-consume adheres to adults only, and may be overridden in the pursuit of other legitimate societal interests, where drug consumption is shown to put others at risk of harm. These constraints leave unabridged the freedom of individual adult consumption, whatever the features of the psychoactive substance, in the absence of any demonstrable harm to others. We should take up a very simple position that the adult voluntary use of any psychoactive substance is a matter of unbridgeable personal freedom. As with all legal principles, there are exceptions. But it is for those who assert the exceptions to demonstrate the case for such action. The burden of proof should lie, not with those who uphold individual freedom, but upon the shoulders of those who contend for its qualification.’

Ebriety is a very uncommon term in English now, even though it appears in the Webster's Dictionary, defined as: "1.Drunkenness, habitual intoxication", and "2.Exhilaration". My intention is understanding ebriety as an experience of the human spirit, so allow me to start with a distinction between inebriation -methe in old greek, ebrietas in latin- and drunkenness (habitual or not).

In the city of Rome, for example, wheat flour and opium were subsidized by the public Treasury, to avoid speculation on the prices, and in the epoch of Augustus -the first emperor- nearly one thousand shops sold this substance all around town. Curiously enough, the drunkards were known as temulenti (and also in more crude terms), while the opium users simply had no particular name, just like aspirin or valium users today; in fact, no case of opium-mania is recorded in the annals of Roman history, and the same can be said of the classical Greek and Hellenistic period.

If we turn our eyes towards the East, very old hymns of the Rig Veda condemn alcoholic beverages as sura, obscurity, but mention ebriety as something released from the burden of gravitation, that "lifts us to the carriage of the winds". We can observe similar attitudes in many aboriginal cultures of America, where ebriety is described with a great number of words, though wine and liquors were imported from Europe, after Discovery. This doesn't mean that alcoholic drinks will not produce inebriation; it simply means that drunkenness is the smaller group, and ebriety the bigger group.

Philo of Alexandria, the Jewish-platonic philosopher who inspired the fourth Gospel, wrote also De ebrietate, a short treatise that defines ebriety as "sacramental joy", tracing the word back to "the old habit of performing religious sacrifices". According to him, methe (inebriation) comes from methíemi, a verb that means to release, to permit; and finally from thyein, that means "giving the god his own".

Ritual ebriety suggests a distinction between possession and visionary trance. With drugs like alcohol, tobacco and other psychoactive solanaceae, certain possession experiences (like vudu, candomblé, or the Semana Santa of Seville) provoke fits of physical frenzy that erase the critical aspect of consciousness. Aided by music and strenuous dancing, the goal is always an opposite of lucidity. On the other hand, visionary trances are catalysed by drugs that enhance perception and do not erase lucidity; they may be used with dance and music, but instead of deaf and mute exhaustion, the normal outcome is a psychic trip, sooner or later introspective.

Besides their sacramental function, all tipes of drugs have been used in therapeutic and recreative contexts. In the sixth century B.C. Hippocrates, the founder of scientific medicine, recomended opium as a good remedy for "hysterical suffocations", and Theophrastus -the pupil of Aristotle- analysed different doses of datura metel for amusement, for hallucination and for euthanasia. Prior to the establishment of Christianity as state religion, psychoactive substances were "neutral spirits", timely or untimely, good or bad, in accordance only with the person and the occasion. Medical practitioners of different kinds considered euphoria -from eu-foría:"the right mood"- to be something healthy and therapeutic in itself. Then came the orthodox sacrifice of Mass; sex and drugs were branded as suspect, and soon after subjected to police action. Books and libraries were burned, the pharmacological knowledge destroyed; euthanasia, understood as a sign of ethical excellence, became a crime against God.

Long after, when a portion of classical knowledge was recovered through the Arabs, and fissures appeared in the Church/State monolith, drugs also returned. In the sixteenth century Michel de Montaigne proposes something systematically silenced for more than one thousand years: "it is better to drink like the heathens, so as to relax the soul". That was, in fact, the heathen program: to relax the soul, and at the same time to avoid inconvenience. Inconvenience betrayed a wound inflicted by Dyonisus-Bacchus, the drug god, and the Dialogues of Plato despise mostly three of them: clumsiness, insensibility and greed. On the other hand, relaxing the soul leads to pleasure and communication. Having the latter, without the former, is the art of sobria ebrietas ("sober inebriation"), an art that demands a certain degree of mastery over nakedness, for ebriety might expose us to the eyes of others -like it did with Noah, supposedly the first drinker-, but at the same time eases the rigidity and sterness of character, unveiling innocence: the infant may then reappear, and see things under a new light.

Dependence, addiction, was not considered an inconvenience. It would have been considered a mixture of clumsiness, insensibility and greed (the inconveniences of simple ebriety), but addiction did not exist as a word -for our heathen ancestors resented much more the dependence on status, money, sex and a great number of other general things, like diet or hygiene, than the dependence on fungi, vineyards, poppy fields or hemp plants. In matters of inebriation, what counted most for them was "familiarity", a degree of acquaintance with each drug, combined with the principle that sola dosis facit venenum ("only dose creates a poison"). If safe levels were not surpassed, any drug would probably intensify the natural inclinations, for better or worse. According to our ancestors, that was nearly all a person needed as abstract or prior information.

This notion of sobria ebrietas can be contrasted with the abstemious creed, as do relative and absolute moderation. Nevertheless, philosophers, physicians and poets thought that drinking soberly, tripping honestly, displayed a surplus of self-esteem and rationality. Sober drinkers, honest trippers, behave with or without drugs; abstemious people must avoid them in order to behave. The first kind of persons will enjoy inner and outer nudity, guided by the Dyonisian enthusiasm. The second kind of persons will avoid inebriation, fearing their own or others dissaproval. Drugs threaten their masks of composure.

This notion of sobria ebrietas can be contrasted with the abstemious creed, as do relative and absolute moderation. Nevertheless, philosophers, physicians and poets thought that drinking soberly, tripping honestly, displayed a surplus of self-esteem and rationality. Sober drinkers, honest trippers, behave with or without drugs; abstemious people must avoid them in order to behave. The first kind of persons will enjoy inner and outer nudity, guided by the Dyonisian enthusiasm. The second kind of persons will avoid inebriation, fearing their own or others dissaproval. Drugs threaten their masks of composure.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/[…]/

The most commented, highest voted issues on the 'Your Freedom' sham website, demoted to a single line in 'Other Ideas'.

This is an TOTAL AND UTTER DISGRACE.

I am responsible, intelligent, taxpaying citizen yet HAVE NO RESPECT FOR THE LAW.

Aside from all the other arguments.

THE LAW IS DISRCRIMINATION.

THE LAW IS AN ASS.

The Liberal Democrats will never get my vote again. I will never vote Labour again. I will never vote Conservative. All because of this important issue.

WHY ARE WE NOT BEING LISTENED TO?!

Clegg and Cameron you are LIARS AND HYPOCRITS, having supported this proposal in the past. You have blood on your hands.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/[…]/

The most commented, highest voted issues on the 'Your Freedom' sham website, demoted to a single line in 'Other Ideas'.

This is an TOTAL AND UTTER DISGRACE.

I am responsible, intelligent, taxpaying citizen yet HAVE NO RESPECT FOR THE LAW.

Aside from all the other arguments.

THE LAW IS DISRCRIMINATION.

THE LAW IS AN ASS.

The Liberal Democrats will never get my vote again. I will never vote Labour again. I will never vote Conservative. All because of this important issue.

WHY ARE WE NOT BEING LISTENED TO?!

Clegg and Cameron you are LIARS AND HYPOCRITS, having supported this proposal in the past. You have blood on your hands.

I don't want to be a criminal anymore, please give me my freedom and change the drug laws

The message is clear. Every Lib-Dem vote was payed with counterfeit faith.

Each voter is a pawn; their interests cast aside when optimal utility has been extracted.

Obviate the party of liars. Spread word of their betrayal and destroy the Lib-Dems as a cancer.

The message is clear. Every Lib-Dem vote was payed with counterfeit faith.

Each voter is a pawn; their interests cast aside when optimal utility has been extracted.

Obviate the party of liars. Spread word of their betrayal and destroy the Lib-Dems as a cancer.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/[…]/

The most commented, highest voted issues on the 'Your Freedom' sham website, demoted to a single line in 'Other Ideas'.

This is an TOTAL AND UTTER DISGRACE.

I am responsible, intelligent, taxpaying citizen yet HAVE NO RESPECT FOR THE LAW.

Aside from all the other arguments.

THE LAW IS DISRCRIMINATION.

THE LAW IS AN ASS.

The Liberal Democrats will never get my vote again. I will never vote Labour again. I will never vote Conservative. All because of this important issue.

WHY ARE WE NOT BEING LISTENED TO?!

Clegg and Cameron you are LIARS AND HYPOCRITS, having supported this proposal in the past. You have blood on your hands.

The message is clear. Every Lib-Dem vote was payed with counterfeit faith.

Each voter is a pawn; their interests cast aside when optimal utility has been extracted.

Obviate the party of liars. Spread word of their betrayal and destroy the Lib-Dems as a cancer.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/[…]/

The most commented, highest voted issues on the 'Your Freedom' sham website, demoted to a single line in 'Other Ideas'.

This is an TOTAL AND UTTER DISGRACE.

I am responsible, intelligent, taxpaying citizen yet HAVE NO RESPECT FOR THE LAW.

Aside from all the other arguments.

THE LAW IS DISRCRIMINATION.

THE LAW IS AN ASS.

The Liberal Democrats will never get my vote again. I will never vote Labour again. I will never vote Conservative. All because of this important issue.

WHY ARE WE NOT BEING LISTENED TO?!

Clegg and Cameron you are LIARS AND HYPOCRITS, having supported this proposal in the past. You have blood on your hands.

They are absolutely shameless

I've saved both this page and the response.

I'll be sending both, unedited, along with an explanatory note to the newspapers I read.

Please, please, do the same.

Having watched C4's "our war on drugs" last night it is obviously no longer an argument of "should drugs be class-a/b/c, decriminalised or legalised".

It is simply.

How do you justify a 1% success rate - If a police force admitted they had spent a fortune and only solved 1% of violent crime, thefts & fraud - there would be uproar and demands for policy changes. Well that is the success rate for drugs prohibition in Scotland.

Prohiibition has created an entire sub-culture where criminal activity is the norm (even for law-abiding people, as they have to break the law to get drugs they want). Legalise and regulate the drugs supply and you pull the rug from under this entire sub-culture.

It shouldn't be more profitable to sit on the dole than to work, it shouldn't be more profitable to sell drugs than to work.

The only way this is achievable is by removing the drugs from the criminals control as you cannot reduce the demand - prohibition does exactly to opposite of this.

Having watched C4's "our war on drugs" last night it is obviously no longer an argument of "should drugs be class-a/b/c, decriminalised or legalised".

It is simply.

How do you justify a 1% success rate - If a police force admitted they had spent a fortune and only solved 1% of violent crime, thefts & fraud - there would be uproar and demands for policy changes. Well that is the success rate for drugs prohibition in Scotland.

Prohiibition has created an entire sub-culture where criminal activity is the norm (even for law-abiding people, as they have to break the law to get drugs they want). Legalise and regulate the drugs supply and you pull the rug from under this entire sub-culture.

It shouldn't be more profitable to sit on the dole than to work, it shouldn't be more profitable to sell drugs than to work.

The only way this is achievable is by removing the drugs from the criminals control as you cannot reduce the demand - prohibition does exactly to opposite of this.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/u[…]ody-officer-surfed-internet

This is the hard line and uncaring attitude the drug war fosters and even encourages by marginalising drug users and pushing them to the outskirts of society.

Is this the definition of morality in the prohibitionist mindset?

Here are the facts,

http://www.channel4.com/[…]/4od#3109766

Even the UN with it's idiotic drug war policy that it's forced on member states for decades is now shifting it's focus as they are slowly waking up to the unfathomable damage drug prohibition has and continues to cause.

Of course we now know how many of the ideas on this board are going to be adopted. It's official: None.

Let's just hope it has some long term effects on the few politicians who bother to look at it.

- The most commented, highest voted issues on the 'Your Freedom' sham website, demoted to a single line in 'Other Ideas'.

Disgusting and shameless start for the government and especially the LibDems!

The corruption and inadequacy's in the system are shown bare here.

Votes don't count, voices don't count, laws not in the common good actively hushed up.

I am not a citizen, I'm a prisoner.

Don't waste all your anger on this website.
The Lib Dems did well from supporters of a rational drugs policy. They must now reap the betrayal they have sown.

Tell your friends about the Party of Lies. If you listen to the radio, call in. If you read a newspaper, take 10 minutes to write a brief explanatory note.

Let the party that replaces them know to take this issue seriously.

Right guys, If they wont listen here - start mailbombing your local MP's and Media demanding that they debate the issues raised by all the drugs legislation threads....

Each adult should be free to make lifestyle decisions without the intervention of the state.

Some great articles on the Guardian website over the weekend:

A unique chance to rethink drugs policy
http://www.guardian.co.uk/[…]/leader-drugs-legalisation-reform-marijuana

Drugs: the problem is more than just the substances, it's the prohibition itself
http://www.guardian.co.uk/[…]/drugs-latin-america-legalisation-karam

War on drugs: why the US and Latin America could be ready to end a fruitless 40-year struggle
http://www.guardian.co.uk/[…]/drugs-legalise-mexico-california

And from the Huffington Post:
Imagine if We Never Ended the War on Alcohol
http://www.huffingtonpost.c[…]e-never-ended_b_663268.html

"Right guys, If they wont listen here - start mailbombing your local MP's and Media demanding that they debate the issues raised by all the drugs legislation threads...."

In my opinion this would be a complete waste of your time. I think your time would be better spent opening google, typing the words 'lawful rebellion' and then reading and learning as much as you can. Perhaps then you can try and humbly teach, spread the word and love for each other.

This law is a symptom of far deeper problems. It is better to try and address those problems then merely treat this one symptom. In fact trying to treat this symptom without addressing the deeper problems is hopeless and doomed to failure.

Are there any legal experts out there who could answer the following question?

If the government have failed to disclose information regarding drugs and drug policy, simply for them to gain seats in the next election: does this not count as fraud?

I am no legal expert but I do remember coming across this. Gordon brown was taken to court over his election manifesto promise for a referendum.

http://more-to-life-than-sh[…]manifesto-pledge-meant.html

"In the court case brought against him for breach of contract over a referendum on the EU Constitution, Brown's personal barrister has just told the court that "manifesto pledges are not subject to legitimate expectation"."

I don't remember but I don't think the court case got very far. I think this may go some way to answering your question.

Add to that their ability to present lies better than others can present the truth: and I know it would be pointless.

Cheers anyway

You are right, legalise the drugs = ligitimise drug sale in the uk and you start to remove the criminal elements livlyhood. Also once the stigma is removed the claims of corative powers of canabis etc can be investgated.
Well done that man

kEEP DRUGS ILLEGAL SO I DONT HAVE TO WORK
Info
by Raggy on July 11, 2010 at 07:22PM We should keep all drugs illegal so i dont have to work

buy keeping drugs illegal i can make a good profit without leaving my flat. Once a week i have a man come to me with £10,000 of heroin, crack, lsd, coke and cannabis.

Because no one can buy these at the shops i make a killing and dont have to pay taxes or go to work. Because it is illegal i dont have to ask kids for ID and to stretch my profit further i cut the products with things like washing powder, sometimes i put ground glass in my cannabis deals to make them weigh more! its great. i have to go to the social once every 2 weeks to get my JSA, thats a side income for me so i can afford my sky+ HD subscription and pay my merc repayments without cutting into my drug profits.

 

if im arrested i MAY go to jail but never mind, ive saved a few hundread thou from over the years in an account not linked to me so while it costs millions to keep in jail im sitting back waiting for my release date, or what i call retirement day.

Why the contribution is important
it helps the gov hide under a smoke screen and removes mp's chances of being discraced for supporting the legalise movment.

 

if you havent noticed im being facetious. the above is exactly what any drug dealer would say.

but hey, what do we know. This government has chosen not to listen to us and continue flushing our money down the sewer while allowing the end user to be incacerated and ultimately allowing people to die from contaminated drugs whcih otherwise are safer than all legal drugs.

Nearly 1000 comments on cannabis

The largest debate on your freedom

99 percent want drug policy reform let alone legal cannabis.

STILL NO COMMENT FROM GOVERNMENT?

More than 70 percent would like cannabis legal

http://www.libdemvoice.org/[…]wearing-lib-dems-20241.html

http://www.libdemvoice.org/[…]wearing-lib-dems-20241.html

The correct link, apologies

I don't know if a link has already been posted here but there is a poll on the channel 4 website asking if drugs should be legalised.

If anyone wants to vote the link is:

http://www.channel4.com/[…]/poll-should-drugs-be-legal

Looks like the population wants change if the results so far are anything to go by.

http://www.channel4.com/[…]/poll-should-drugs-be-legal

Sorry, link didn't come out right.

I sometimes wonder, and I am probably completely wrong about this, that the single most important reason for our current laws is that repealing them would adversely affect the income of those manufacturing and distributing recreational drugs, and therefore adversely affect the payments to those keeping the laws as they are. Or is this just cynicism?
Education and peer presure are the best way to tackle this problem

From the guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/[…]/archive-doctor-says-pot-preferable

THINGS MUST CHANGE NOW. 70 PECENT OF THE UK PUBLIC WANT A LEGAL CONTROLLED CANNABIS MARKET!

de-criminise, regularise, standardise, TAX.

People know the truth about cannabis.

Very few wish to believe the lies. 70 percent vs 30 pecent

The drug (PEOPLE) war is D E A D

from the Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/[…]/decriminalising-drugs-big-issue

You know something is a brew when this happens- are we actually all becoming humanitarians and working from the same page?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/[…]ove-health-doctor-says.html

As documented in channel four's "Our Drug War" - it's not just our drug war, the film outlines how it is very much NOT our drug war, because of our ways and laws, we are destroying lives and countries overseas as well as here. Not only for the UK do we need to end this regime, but we need to take responsibility for our consequential fallout.

true! End this pathetic war.

see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-10990921 .. ."Top doctor Sir Ian Gilmore calls for drugs law review".
In the same article (and i quote) "The government does not believe that decriminalisation is the right approach. Our priorities are clear; we want to reduce drug use, crack down on drug-related crime and disorder and help addicts come off drugs for good."..
I am so tired of this debate, (even though a debate is when two sides have actual arguments).. there is no logical reason certain substances are illegal beyond puritanism and black market 'enthusiasts'.
The hypocritical 'it's for your own good' stance is a see through facade and worthy of the inquisition. It's fascist and clearly a clever way of targeting people who are viewed as a nuisance.
The drug market needs to be free to flourish under the protection of the law, for both producers and consumers. No to decriminalisation Yes to legalisation.

From my limited perspective it seems that our current drugs policy is
not working to protect me or my new family and I feel that it is time
we took a look at alternative approaches to managing the social ills
arising from the current criminal drugs industry.

I would like you to use your time on office to make a real difference
to our society by finding ways to both reduce crime arising from the
sale of illegal drugs and to reduce the harm that comes to people who
misuse drugs. I don't want our country to follow the USA and for us to
see parts of our cities becoming almost third world with the growth in
violence between rival drug cartels.

As a government you probably have access to far greater resources than just a
private individual like myself so you will have a better idea of what
works and what does not, so you should be able to come up with
something better than the current failing strategy. As a starting
point, you could look to draw lessons from our approaches to the
management of alcohol and tobacco.

Can I set you a few goals:

* Campaign to use market forces rather than policing to combat the
evils associated with narcotics.
* Reduce crime and improve the health of the poor in our community.
* Take drugs out of the hands of criminals.
* Win the war on terror by taking the source of funding away from our
enemies and turning their friends into our allies.
* Reduce the reliance on foreign aid for the poorest in the world by
giving them real jobs.
* Give big businesses new products to sell and the media new
advertising revenue and things to discuss.
* Make air travel safer by freeing security to look for terrorists not
smugglers.
* Give people a safe place to enjoy their drugs.
* Provide support for people who abuse the drugs.
* Reduce policing and defence costs and raise new tax revenues.

Some possibly naive suggestions

War on terror
- Reduce terrorist funding by buying opium and cocaine directly from
the growers and pricing the terrorists out of the market.
- Reduce corruption in Afghanistan because it will be more profitable
to work within the law than as an illegal smuggler.

Crime on our streets
- Reduce street crime and turf wars by moving the distribution network
off the streets and out of the hands of criminals.
- Provide pure, correctly labelled, high quality drugs at a fair price
so users have no incentive to go to criminal dealers.

Safety of users
- Move the sale of drugs into controlled and licenses premises which
are regulated by the courts and monitored by both the police and local
trading standards offices.

Existing pubs and clubs may well be the most suitable leisure venues.
- Move the production of drugs over to the drinks industry as they
have experience in producing consumable substances of consistent
quality and we already have existing relationships both with the
revenue and with distribution networks.

Health
- As with Alcohol and Tobacco there are people who abuse rather than
use additive substances so we will divert part of the additional tax
revenue raised to fund health and education services.

I agree with the above.

The continued criminalisation of many young people who know that it is not the drugs which cause the problem (they use them frequently successfully and without messing up their work or their lives!) results in them thinking that politics and politicians are irrelevant.
Drug laws waste money, they waste lives, they waste time that could be spent on doing something worthwhile. They ruin the economies of other countries and provide a wonderful opportunity for criminals to make remarkably easy money. The current system could not be better designed to provide a recruiting ground for violent criminals.
Please be imaginative - in the end you will have to give up the laws why spend years enforcing unfair and stupid laws.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/[…]t-crime-improve-health.html

Even the Daily Fail poll has 70% pro legalisation & regulation.

Where is our Parlimentary Debate.

You work for us and 70% of us want the drugs policy changed.

Home Office recent update to calls for decriminalisation. I agree - full legalisation is far superior option.

//Drugs cause misery
Responding to Sir Ian’s comments, a Home Office spokesperson said: 'Drugs such as heroin, cocaine and cannabis are extremely harmful and can cause misery to communities across the country.

'The government does not believe that decriminalisation is the right approach. Our priorities are clear; we want to reduce drug use, crack down on drug related crime and disorder and help addicts come off drugs for good.'//
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/[…]/decriminalisation-wrong

Utterly absurd and laughable were it not so tragic. "Drugs cause misery" - one of the wildest most ignorant, misinformed statements one could make - straight from the Daily Mail. Not to mention the fact that they seem to think cannabis is 'extremely harmful' just like heroin. Another lie. That's an excellent 'message' to send to people. I could go on. Who exactly is this intellectually challenged Home Office spokesperson?

the gov need to wake up and get us out of this double dip recession sooner or later people will be so poor they wont even be able to buy a loaf of bread for less than tow pound.
its time that drugs became legal so that my taxes are not waisted on pointless arrests that dont even account for one percent of the drugs trade. people will take drugs weather you let them or not but makeing them available to the people who want to buy them would give the government much needed revenues.
i challenge you cam and clegg put your money were your mouth is
and make the uk a safer place to live in close down the drug lords in the uk for good tax the drugs and save lives by giving people the clean drugs that would be less harmfull than the unconttrolled dirty substances that infest inner city life
stop cowing down to the paranoid religious nutters who seem to rule the uk behinde closed doors id like to point out that the speed cameras might still be switched on tonight if you had legalized the minor less harmfull drugs.becose the revenue created would have been more than enough to keep every thing running again i challenge you make the uk a safer place to live by cutting gun crime in half over night legalize drugs and save this country from complete ruin you know deep down that we are right about drugs. its time you suited posh gitts lernt something about this issue we freedom lovers will never stop fighting you on this issue becose we know that you have compleatly lost conttrolle of the uk. the fact is the drug comunity is the majority in the uk we out number you nearly a hundred to one if we all stood up and pushed you out of office you would crumble like a house of cards. sooner or latter the public at large will get fed up and show you what they want and you may wish you had done the right thing sooner

Germany to approve medical cannabis

http://www.lca-uk.org/[…]/shownewsarticle.php?articleid=15668

While the UK continues to bang its head against a brick wall!

INSANITY OF THE GOVERNMENT

@ hoodedtop

AGREE WITH YOU MATE!

“I think what was truly depressing about my time in UKADCU was that the overwhelming majority of professionals I met, including those from the police, the health service, the government and voluntary sectors held the same view: the illegality of drugs causes far more problems for society and the individual than it solves. Yet publicly, all those intelligent, knowledgeable people were forced to repeat the nonsensical mantra that the government would be ‘tough on drugs’, even though they all knew the government’s policy was actually causing harm.”

Julian Critchley, Director, Cabinet Office UK Anti-Drug Coordination Unit. 13-08-08

From Peter Reynolds site.

From the TELEGRAPH.

Professor Sir Ian Gilmore, the outgoing president of the Royal College of Physicians, has become the latest high-profile figure to come out in favour of legalising, or at least decriminalising, drugs. Maybe, then, it is a good time to have an honest discussion about what it is we want from our drug policy, and how best to achieve it.

Instead, we get this statement from a Home Office spokesman: “Drugs such as heroin, cocaine and cannabis are extremely harmful and can cause misery to communities across the country. The government does not believe that decriminalisation is the right approach. Our priorities are clear; we want to reduce drug use, crack down on drug-related crime and disorder and help addicts come off drugs for good.”

So, in the face of expert opinion, they offer no evidence or support for prohibition, instead blandly stating that they “do not believe decriminalisation is the right approach”. In a bleakly funny aside, they lump cannabis together with heroin and cocaine, as though they are remotely comparable. And they set up a straw man, saying that the drugs are harmful, which nobody denies.

So, if the Government won’t engage in serious debate, let’s try to start one here. They helpfully lay out their priorities: reducing drug use and reducing drug crime. (”Helping addicts come off drugs for good” really comes under “reducing drug use”, so I’ll ignore it.)

There is a third worthwhile aim of drug policy, which they have neglected: reducing drug harm. Certain activities – needle exchange, say, or prescribing safe heroin of known strength to addicts – may not reduce use, but will mitigate some of the worst effects of drugs, like HIV, poisoning and overdose. I’m going to consider that as well.

So: what is the evidence? Let’s take it one by one.

Reducing drug use: there is no evidence to suggest tough drug policies reduce drug use. A recent article in the BMJ, by Stephen Rolles, the head of the Transform Drug Policy Foundation, says: “Decriminalisation has shown that less punitive approaches do not necessarily lead to increased use.” A World Health Organisation study finds similarly: “Globally, drug use is not distributed evenly and is not simply related to drug policy, since countries with stringent user-level illegal drug policies did not have lower levels of use than countries with liberal ones.”

Even the Netherlands, famous pot-smoking capital of Europe with its coffeeshops selling cannabis à la carte to red-eyed tourists, does not have significantly different levels of use to its neighbours, says Rolle. Portugal, which legalised all drugs in 2001, has seen use fall in the young. US states which have decriminalised cannabis do not have higher use than those which have not. It seems that, if you’re going to take drugs, you’re going to do it whether it’s legal or not.

Reducing drug crime: as well as possession and dealing, drugs must be smuggled in to Britain (or illegally grown here); it must be illegally produced elsewhere; addicts must pay for their fix, and turn to crime; dealers defend their turf, frequently with violence; most significantly, producers and smugglers run empires in countries like Colombia and Afghanistan that rival nation states in their power and riches. Would this be reduced by decriminalisation?

Much of it, obviously, would, and this has been shown in other countries. Addicts who get prescribed heroin for free or at affordable prices will not have to rob. If dealers can set up business in a shop, rather than on a street corner, there is no longer any need for turf wars. If drugs can be legally imported, there is no need to smuggle them (assuming tax levels are not too high), and if they can be legally grown, there is no need for illicit farms.

The illegal production overseas, and the criminal empires that creates, are a trickier problem. But if drugs could be legally bought, then – like alcohol and tobacco – a legal industry would spring up. It would be an unpleasant industry, no doubt, like the alcohol and tobacco industries, that does harm. But they might start to take the billions and billions of pounds of business away from drug lords. It would push them instead towards corporate fat cats, but distasteful as that is, it would be an improvement.

Reducing drug harm: this is clear, and again has been demonstrated in other countries. Addicts on clean heroin using clean needles can actually lead fairly normal lives. The spread of diseases such as HIV and hepatitis among users is lessened, as are accidental poisonings from adulterated drugs. Street drugs of unknown strength are easier to overdose on; clearly labelled, regulated drugs are safer.

As the BMJ article says, “regulation is no silver bullet”. Drugs will always cause harm. It must be introduced carefully, rather than in a blanket fashion: Transform recommends five different grades of regulation, from unlicensed sales for relatively harmless products like caffeine drinks, via licensed premises for riskier products like cannabis, to prescription-only for the most dangerous, like heroin and methamphetamine. We have to accept that there will still be problems, including some new problems. But, as the article points out, “[drugs] can remain in the hands of [criminals], or they can be controlled and regulated by appropriate government authorities. There is no third option under which drugs do not exist.”

Since his speech, Prof Gilmore has been backed by Dr Fiona Godlee, editor of the BMJ. Others to have called for the legalisation of some or all drugs include Nicholas Green, chairman of the Bar Council; Richard Brunstrom, chief constable of North Wales; Professor David Nutt, then head of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs; and his successor in that post, Professor Les Iverson. These are not tie-dyed hippies seeking to throw wide the doors of perception. These are people who know about health, drugs and crime, and think that the current system does more harm than good. Maybe it’s time to listen to them.

I am surprised that so many people think that this is a good idea. Illegal drugs are illegal because they are dangerous. If alcoholic drinks and cigarettes were invented today, they would probably be illegal too. Drug-use can cause violent behaviour which affects people other than the users. It can also cause serious health problems. Ideally, people should not NEED to use drugs so, when making the choice to do so, users must consider the potential threats such as disease (listed by others above). I believe that more people would use drugs if they became legal and there would openly be peer pressure to use them, as there is with alcohol. Legal or not, little can be done to stop those who wish to abuse drugs.

There is one problem: the sentencing of criminals in this country seems very often to be highly inappropriate. This applies to all crime, not only drugs-related. I am saddened that people are seemingly treated badly by the judicial system. I believe it is within the judicial processes and sentencing that the reforms need to happen, rather than avoiding that problem by decriminalising harmful actions.

@elmomail
Let me respond to your points if I may, because there are some common misunderstandings here.
// Illegal drugs are illegal because they are dangerous.//
This is not true. Illegal drugs are 'illegal' because of "social and historical precedents" to quote the Home Office.
//If alcoholic drinks and cigarettes were invented today, they would probably be illegal too.//
Yes they probably would, and I dread to think the situation we would be in, with people stealing to get a cigarette.
//Drug-use can cause violent behaviour which affects people other than the users.//
Which drugs? Alcohol, yes, it can. Cannabis, I have never observed this and I don't think I'm alone. Heroin, no I believe not. Cocaine, yes, large amounts can cause aggression and violence, and I agree this is a problematic drug.
 //Ideally, people should not NEED to use drugs so, when making the choice to do so, users must consider the potential threats such as disease (listed by others above). //
Ideally not no, but people use drugs for a wide variety of reasons and have done so for millenia. Many people derive great benefit from their drug of choice in their recreational free time, I know I do. For example there are many psychological benefits that come with a nice glass of wine, enjoy an occasional joint, or taking ecstasy with a group of friends and dancing, hugging, and chatting.
//I believe that more people would use drugs if they became legal and there would openly be peer pressure to use them, as there is with alcohol.//
A commonly held belief, not supported by current evidence. The 'forbidden fruit' factor actually seems to encourage illicit drug use.
//Legal or not, little can be done to stop those who wish to abuse drugs.//
Correct. For 'abuse', you could say also 'use responsibly' too. Given this, we should focus on prevention through education where necessary, and protect users through harm reduction initiatives. Prohibition, and the stigma that it creates, makes this much more difficult.

I have to say, i'm furious at the lamentable and risable comment from the Home Office this week. It would appear the government intends to use this site to cherrypick the ideas that match its agenda for PR purposes. I intend to write to Nick Clegg insisting on a conference of experts from all appropriate areas to discuss this matter. I would ask you lobby your local MP's to demand this via Parliament. Evidential pressure is gaining momentum. Lets maintain and increase it. No is not an option, Nick!

@ elmomail

Drugs are illegal because America thought drug use was a 'sin'. Not all drugs, though. Just those used by minorities. Hence why alcohol and tobacco are legal.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/[…]/drugs_policy_the_british_system.html

I wrote a letter to my MP after the sacking of Prof. David Nutt by the postman.

Sacked for daring to speak out the truth, that more than anything says all there is to know about vindictive government policy on some drug users.

Drug policy is a sick joke and so are the polititians perpetuating it who's only real interest is their public image and "career"

kEEP DRUGS ILLEGAL SO I DONT HAVE TO WORK Info by Raggy on July 11, 2010 at 07:22PM We should keep all drugs illegal so i dont have to work buy keeping drugs illegal i can make a good profit without leaving my flat. Once a week i have a man come to me with £10,000 of heroin, crack, lsd, coke and cannabis. Because no one can buy these at the shops i make a killing and dont have to pay taxes or go to work. Because it is illegal i dont have to ask kids for ID and to stretch my profit further i cut the products with things like washing powder, sometimes i put ground glass in my cannabis deals to make them weigh more! its great. i have to go to the social once every 2 weeks to get my JSA, thats a side income for me so i can afford my sky+ HD subscription and pay my merc repayments without cutting into my drug profits. if im arrested i MAY go to jail but never mind, ive saved a few hundread thou from over the years in an account not linked to me so while it costs millions to keep in jail im sitting back waiting for my release date, or what i call retirement day. Why the contribution is important it helps the gov hide under a smoke screen and removes mp's chances of being discraced for supporting the legalise movment. if you havent noticed im being facetious. the above is exactly what any drug dealer would say.

kEEP DRUGS ILLEGAL SO I DONT HAVE TO WORK Info by Raggy on July 11, 2010 at 07:22PM We should keep all drugs illegal so i dont have to work buy keeping drugs illegal i can make a good profit without leaving my flat. Once a week i have a man come to me with £10,000 of heroin, crack, lsd, coke and cannabis. Because no one can buy these at the shops i make a killing and dont have to pay taxes or go to work. Because it is illegal i dont have to ask kids for ID and to stretch my profit further i cut the products with things like washing powder, sometimes i put ground glass in my cannabis deals to make them weigh more! its great. i have to go to the social once every 2 weeks to get my JSA, thats a side income for me so i can afford my sky+ HD subscription and pay my merc repayments without cutting into my drug profits. if im arrested i MAY go to jail but never mind, ive saved a few hundread thou from over the years in an account not linked to me so while it costs millions to keep in jail im sitting back waiting for my release date, or what i call retirement day. Why the contribution is important it helps the gov hide under a smoke screen and removes mp's chances of being discraced for supporting the legalise movment. if you havent noticed im being facetious. the above is exactly what any drug dealer would say.

WHEN PRPOPSITION 19 PASSED THIS GOVERNMENT IS IN DEAP SHIT ANYWAY.

DRUGS WILL EVENTUALLY BE LEGAL.

ACCEPT THAT LIERS. (

Many people assume that marijuana was made illegal through some kind of process involving scientific, medical, and government hearings; that it was to protect the citizens from what was determined to be a dangerous drug.

The actual story shows a much different picture. Those who voted on the legal fate of this plant never had the facts, but were dependent on information supplied by those who had a specific agenda to deceive lawmakers. You’ll see below that the very first federal vote to prohibit marijuana was based entirely on a documented lie on the floor of the Senate.

You’ll also see that the history of marijuana’s criminalization is filled with:

Racism
Fear
Protection of Corporate Profits
Yellow Journalism
Ignorant, Incompetent, and/or Corrupt Legislators
Personal Career Advancement and Greed
These are the actual reasons marijuana is illegal.

Background

For most of human history, marijuana has been completely legal. It’s not a recently discovered plant, nor is it a long-standing law. Marijuana has been illegal for less than 1% of the time that it’s been in use. Its known uses go back further than 7,000 B.C. and it was legal as recently as when Ronald Reagan was a boy.

The marijuana (hemp) plant, of course, has an incredible number of uses. The earliest known woven fabric was apparently of hemp, and over the centuries the plant was used for food, incense, cloth, rope, and much more. This adds to some of the confusion over its introduction in the United States, as the plant was well known from the early 1600′s, but did not reach public awareness as a recreational drug until the early 1900′s.

America’s first marijuana law was enacted at Jamestown Colony, Virginia in 1619. It was a law “ordering” all farmers to grow Indian hempseed. There were several other “must grow” laws over the next 200 years (you could be jailed for not growing hemp during times of shortage in Virginia between 1763 and 1767), and during most of that time, hemp was legal tender (you could even pay your taxes with hemp — try that today!) Hemp was such a critical crop for a number of purposes (including essential war requirements – rope, etc.) that the government went out of its way to encourage growth.

The United States Census of 1850 counted 8,327 hemp “plantations” (minimum 2,000-acre farm) growing cannabis hemp for cloth, canvas and even the cordage used for baling cotton.

The Mexican Connection

In the early 1900s, the western states developed significant tensions regarding the influx of Mexican-Americans. The revolution in Mexico in 1910 spilled over the border, with General Pershing’s army clashing with bandit Pancho Villa. Later in that decade, bad feelings developed between the small farmer and the large farms that used cheaper Mexican labor. Then, the depression came and increased tensions, as jobs and welfare resources became scarce.

One of the “differences” seized upon during this time was the fact that many Mexicans smoked marijuana and had brought the plant with them, and it was through this that California apparently passed the first state marijuana law, outlawing “preparations of hemp, or loco weed.”

However, one of the first state laws outlawing marijuana may have been influenced, not just by Mexicans using the drug, but, oddly enough, because of Mormons using it. Mormons who traveled to Mexico in 1910 came back to Salt Lake City with marijuana. The church’s reaction to this may have contributed to the state’s marijuana law. (Note: the source for this speculation is from articles by Charles Whitebread, Professor of Law at USC Law School in a paper for the Virginia Law Review, and a speech to the California Judges Association (sourced below). Mormon blogger Ardis Parshall disputes this.)

Other states quickly followed suit with marijuana prohibition laws, including Wyoming (1915), Texas (1919), Iowa (1923), Nevada (1923), Oregon (1923), Washington (1923), Arkansas (1923), and Nebraska (1927). These laws tended to be specifically targeted against the Mexican-American population.

When Montana outlawed marijuana in 1927, the Butte Montana Standard reported a legislator’s comment: “When some beet field peon takes a few traces of this stuff… he thinks he has just been elected president of Mexico, so he starts out to execute all his political enemies.” In Texas, a senator said on the floor of the Senate: “All Mexicans are crazy, and this stuff [marijuana] is what makes them crazy.”

Jazz and Assassins

In the eastern states, the “problem” was attributed to a combination of Latin Americans and black jazz musicians. Marijuana and jazz traveled from New Orleans to Chicago, and then to Harlem, where marijuana became an indispensable part of the music scene, even entering the language of the black hits of the time (Louis Armstrong’s “Muggles”, Cab Calloway’s “That Funny Reefer Man”, Fats Waller’s “Viper’s Drag”).

Again, racism was part of the charge against marijuana, as newspapers in 1934 editorialized: “Marihuana influences Negroes to look at white people in the eye, step on white men’s shadows and look at a white woman twice.”

Two other fear-tactic rumors started to spread: one, that Mexicans, Blacks and other foreigners were snaring white children with marijuana; and two, the story of the “assassins.” Early stories of Marco Polo had told of “hasheesh-eaters” or hashashin, from which derived the term “assassin.” In the original stories, these professional killers were given large doses of hashish and brought to the ruler’s garden (to give them a glimpse of the paradise that awaited them upon successful completion of their mission). Then, after the effects of the drug disappeared, the assassin would fulfill his ruler’s wishes with cool, calculating loyalty.

By the 1930s, the story had changed. Dr. A. E. Fossier wrote in the 1931 New Orleans Medical and Surgical Journal: “Under the influence of hashish those fanatics would madly rush at their enemies, and ruthlessly massacre every one within their grasp.” Within a very short time, marijuana started being linked to violent behavior.

Alcohol Prohibition and Federal Approaches to Drug Prohibition

During this time, the United States was also dealing with alcohol prohibition, which lasted from 1919 to 1933. Alcohol prohibition was extremely visible and debated at all levels, while drug laws were passed without the general public’s knowledge. National alcohol prohibition happened through the mechanism of an amendment to the constitution.

Earlier (1914), the Harrison Act was passed, which provided federal tax penalties for opiates and cocaine.

The federal approach is important. It was considered at the time that the federal government did not have the constitutional power to outlaw alcohol or drugs. It is because of this that alcohol prohibition required a constitutional amendment.

At that time in our country’s history, the judiciary regularly placed the tenth amendment in the path of congressional regulation of “local” affairs, and direct regulation of medical practice was considered beyond congressional power under the commerce clause (since then, both provisions have been weakened so far as to have almost no meaning).

Since drugs could not be outlawed at the federal level, the decision was made to use federal taxes as a way around the restriction. In the Harrison Act, legal uses of opiates and cocaine were taxed (supposedly as a revenue need by the federal government, which is the only way it would hold up in the courts), and those who didn’t follow the law found themselves in trouble with the treasury department.

In 1930, a new division in the Treasury Department was established — the Federal Bureau of Narcotics — and Harry J. Anslinger was named director. This, if anything, marked the beginning of the all-out war against marijuana.

Harry J. Anslinger

Anslinger was an extremely ambitious man, and he recognized the Bureau of Narcotics as an amazing career opportunity — a new government agency with the opportunity to define both the problem and the solution. He immediately realized that opiates and cocaine wouldn’t be enough to help build his agency, so he latched on to marijuana and started to work on making it illegal at the federal level.

Anslinger immediately drew upon the themes of racism and violence to draw national attention to the problem he wanted to create. He also promoted and frequently read from “Gore Files” — wild reefer-madness-style exploitation tales of ax murderers on marijuana and sex and… Negroes. Here are some quotes that have been widely attributed to Anslinger and his Gore Files:

“There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others.”

“…the primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races.”

“Marijuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality, and death.”

“Reefer makes darkies think they’re as good as white men.”

“Marihuana leads to pacifism and communist brainwashing”

“You smoke a joint and you’re likely to kill your brother.”

“Marijuana is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind.”
And he loved to pull out his own version of the “assassin” definition:

“In the year 1090, there was founded in Persia the religious and military order of the Assassins, whose history is one of cruelty, barbarity, and murder, and for good reason: the members were confirmed users of hashish, or marihuana, and it is from the Arabs’ ‘hashashin’ that we have the English word ‘assassin.’”

Yellow Journalism

Harry Anslinger got some additional help from William Randolf Hearst, owner of a huge chain of newspapers. Hearst had lots of reasons to help. First, he hated Mexicans. Second, he had invested heavily in the timber industry to support his newspaper chain and didn’t want to see the development of hemp paper in competition. Third, he had lost 800,000 acres of timberland to Pancho Villa, so he hated Mexicans. Fourth, telling lurid lies about Mexicans (and the devil marijuana weed causing violence) sold newspapers, making him rich.

Some samples from the San Francisco Examiner:

“Marihuana makes fiends of boys in thirty days — Hashish goads users to bloodlust.”

“By the tons it is coming into this country — the deadly, dreadful poison that racks and tears not only the body, but the very heart and soul of every human being who once becomes a slave to it in any of its cruel and devastating forms…. Marihuana is a short cut to the insane asylum. Smoke marihuana cigarettes for a month and what was once your brain will be nothing but a storehouse of horrid specters. Hasheesh makes a murderer who kills for the love of killing out of the mildest mannered man who ever laughed at the idea that any habit could ever get him….”
And other nationwide columns…

“Users of marijuana become STIMULATED as they inhale the drug and are LIKELY TO DO ANYTHING. Most crimes of violence in this section, especially in country districts are laid to users of that drug.”

“Was it marijuana, the new Mexican drug, that nerved the murderous arm of Clara Phillips when she hammered out her victim’s life in Los Angeles?… THREE-FOURTHS OF THE CRIMES of violence in this country today are committed by DOPE SLAVES — that is a matter of cold record.”
Hearst and Anslinger were then supported by Dupont chemical company and various pharmaceutical companies in the effort to outlaw cannabis. Dupont had patented nylon, and wanted hemp removed as competition. The pharmaceutical companies could neither identify nor standardize cannabis dosages, and besides, with cannabis, folks could grow their own medicine and not have to purchase it from large companies.

This all set the stage for…

The Marijuana Tax Act of 1937.

After two years of secret planning, Anslinger brought his plan to Congress — complete with a scrapbook full of sensational Hearst editorials, stories of ax murderers who had supposedly smoked marijuana, and racial slurs.

It was a remarkably short set of hearings.

The one fly in Anslinger’s ointment was the appearance by Dr. William C. Woodward, Legislative Council of the American Medical Association.

Woodward started by slamming Harry Anslinger and the Bureau of Narcotics for distorting earlier AMA statements that had nothing to do with marijuana and making them appear to be AMA endorsement for Anslinger’s view.

He also reproached the legislature and the Bureau for using the term marijuana in the legislation and not publicizing it as a bill about cannabis or hemp. At this point, marijuana (or marihuana) was a sensationalist word used to refer to Mexicans smoking a drug and had not been connected in most people’s minds to the existing cannabis/hemp plant. Thus, many who had legitimate reasons to oppose the bill weren’t even aware of it.

Woodward went on to state that the AMA was opposed to the legislation and further questioned the approach of the hearings, coming close to outright accusation of misconduct by Anslinger and the committee:

“That there is a certain amount of narcotic addiction of an objectionable character no one will deny. The newspapers have called attention to it so prominently that there must be some grounds for [their] statements [even Woodward was partially taken in by Hearst's propaganda]. It has surprised me, however, that the facts on which these statements have been based have not been brought before this committee by competent primary evidence. We are referred to newspaper publications concerning the prevalence of marihuana addiction. We are told that the use of marihuana causes crime.

But yet no one has been produced from the Bureau of Prisons to show the number of prisoners who have been found addicted to the marihuana habit. An informed inquiry shows that the Bureau of Prisons has no evidence on that point.

You have been told that school children are great users of marihuana cigarettes. No one has been summoned from the Children’s Bureau to show the nature and extent of the habit, among children.

Inquiry of the Children’s Bureau shows that they have had no occasion to investigate it and know nothing particularly of it.

Inquiry of the Office of Education— and they certainly should know something of the prevalence of the habit among the school children of the country, if there is a prevalent habit— indicates that they have had no occasion to investigate and know nothing of it.

Moreover, there is in the Treasury Department itself, the Public Health Service, with its Division of Mental Hygiene. The Division of Mental Hygiene was, in the first place, the Division of Narcotics. It was converted into the Division of Mental Hygiene, I think, about 1930. That particular Bureau has control at the present time of the narcotics farms that were created about 1929 or 1930 and came into operation a few years later. No one has been summoned from that Bureau to give evidence on that point.

Informal inquiry by me indicates that they have had no record of any marihuana of Cannabis addicts who have ever been committed to those farms.

The bureau of Public Health Service has also a division of pharmacology. If you desire evidence as to the pharmacology of Cannabis, that obviously is the place where you can get direct and primary evidence, rather than the indirect hearsay evidence.”
Committee members then proceeded to attack Dr. Woodward, questioning his motives in opposing the legislation. Even the Chairman joined in:

The Chairman: If you want to advise us on legislation, you ought to come here with some constructive proposals, rather than criticism, rather than trying to throw obstacles in the way of something that the Federal Government is trying to do. It has not only an unselfish motive in this, but they have a serious responsibility.

Dr. Woodward: We cannot understand yet, Mr. Chairman, why this bill should have been prepared in secret for 2 years without any intimation, even, to the profession, that it was being prepared.
After some further bantering…

The Chairman: I would like to read a quotation from a recent editorial in the Washington Times:

The marihuana cigarette is one of the most insidious of all forms of dope, largely because of the failure of the public to understand its fatal qualities.

The Nation is almost defenseless against it, having no Federal laws to cope with it and virtually no organized campaign for combating it.

The result is tragic.

School children are the prey of peddlers who infest school neighborhoods.

High school boys and girls buy the destructive weed without knowledge of its capacity of harm, and conscienceless dealers sell it with impunity.

This is a national problem, and it must have national attention.

The fatal marihuana cigarette must be recognized as a deadly drug, and American children must be protected against it.
That is a pretty severe indictment. They say it is a national question and that it requires effective legislation. Of course, in a general way, you have responded to all of these statements; but that indicates very clearly that it is an evil of such magnitude that it is recognized by the press of the country as such.
And that was basically it. Yellow journalism won over medical science.

The committee passed the legislation on. And on the floor of the house, the entire discussion was:

Member from upstate New York: “Mr. Speaker, what is this bill about?”

Speaker Rayburn: “I don’t know. It has something to do with a thing called marihuana. I think it’s a narcotic of some kind.”

“Mr. Speaker, does the American Medical Association support this bill?”

Member on the committee jumps up and says: “Their Doctor Wentworth[sic] came down here. They support this bill 100 percent.”
And on the basis of that lie, on August 2, 1937, marijuana became illegal at the federal level.

The entire coverage in the New York Times: “President Roosevelt signed today a bill to curb traffic in the narcotic, marihuana, through heavy taxes on transactions.”

Anslinger as precursor to the Drug Czars

Anslinger was essentially the first Drug Czar. Even though the term didn’t exist until William Bennett’s position as director of the White House Office of National Drug Policy, Anslinger acted in a similar fashion. In fact, there are some amazing parallels between Anslinger and the current Drug Czar John Walters. Both had kind of a carte blanche to go around demonizing drugs and drug users. Both had resources and a large public podium for their voice to be heard and to promote their personal agenda. Both lied constantly, often when it was unnecessary. Both were racists. Both had the ear of lawmakers, and both realized that they could persuade legislators and others based on lies, particularly if they could co-opt the media into squelching or downplaying any opposition views.

Anslinger even had the ability to circumvent the First Amendment. He banned the Canadian movie “Drug Addict,” a 1946 documentary that realistically depicted the drug addicts and law enforcement efforts. He even tried to get Canada to ban the movie in their own country, or failing that, to prevent U.S. citizens from seeing the movie in Canada. Canada refused. (Today, Drug Czar John Walters is trying to bully Canada into keeping harsh marijuana laws.)

Anslinger had 37 years to solidify the propaganda and stifle opposition. The lies continued the entire time (although the stories would adjust — the 21 year old Florida boy who killed his family of five got younger each time he told it). In 1961, he looked back at his efforts:

“Much of the most irrational juvenile violence and that has written a new chapter of shame and tragedy is traceable directly to this hemp intoxication. A gang of boys tear the clothes from two school girls and rape the screaming girls, one boy after the other. A sixteen-year-old kills his entire family of five in Florida, a man in Minnesota puts a bullet through the head of a stranger on the road; in Colorado husband tries to shoot his wife, kills her grandmother instead and then kills himself. Every one of these crimes had been proceeded [sic] by the smoking of one or more marijuana “reefers.” As the marijuana situation grew worse, I knew action had to be taken to get the proper legislation passed. By 1937 under my direction, the Bureau launched two important steps First, a legislative plan to seek from Congress a new law that would place marijuana and its distribution directly under federal control. Second, on radio and at major forums, such that presented annually by the New York Herald Tribune, I told the story of this evil weed of the fields and river beds and roadsides. I wrote articles for magazines; our agents gave hundreds of lectures to parents, educators, social and civic leaders. In network broadcasts I reported on the growing list of crimes, including murder and rape. I described the nature of marijuana and its close kinship to hashish. I continued to hammer at the facts.

I believe we did a thorough job, for the public was alerted and the laws to protect them were passed, both nationally and at the state level. We also brought under control the wild growing marijuana in this country. Working with local authorities, we cleaned up hundreds of acres of marijuana and we uprooted plants sprouting along the roadsides.”
After Anslinger

On a break from college in the 70s, I was visiting a church in rural Illinois. There in the literature racks in the back of the church was a lurid pamphlet about the evils of marijuana — all the old reefer madness propaganda about how it caused insanity and murder. I approached the minister and said “You can’t have this in your church. It’s all lies, and the church shouldn’t be about promoting lies.” Fortunately, my dad believed me, and he had the material removed. He didn’t even know how it got there. But without me speaking up, neither he nor the other members of the church had any reason NOT to believe what the pamphlet said. The propaganda machine had been that effective.

The narrative since then has been a continual litany of:

Politicians wanting to appear tough on crime and passing tougher penalties
Constant increases in spending on law enforcement and prisons
Racist application of drug laws
Taxpayer funded propaganda
Stifling of opposition speech
Political contributions from corporations that profit from marijuana being illegal (pharmaceuticals, alcohol, etc.)
… but that’s another whole story.

From Prof David Nutt

Drug users should face penalties
Drug users should face civil sanctions such as fines or the loss of their driving licence instead of criminal penalties, a former government drugs adviser has said.

Professor David Nutt, who was sacked as the Labour government's top drugs adviser after saying ecstasy was less harmful than alcohol, said simply waging war against users will not work.

"What we need is a radical new approach that may include the regulated sale of some drugs," he told the Radio Times.

"Drug use will always be with us, so legal sanctions will continue to fail. Some years ago, Portugal abolished this approach replacing it with civil sanctions such as a fine or suspending your driving licence.

"This approach, coupled with treatment initiatives, has been going now for 10 years and drug use, drug crime and drug harms have all reduced by about half, with huge savings to society. This should be the way forward in the UK."

Prof Nutt went on: "Drugs policy has to change if we are to make any impact on the epidemic of drug use and drug-related harms that pervade society today."

He said the criminal approach to drugs has failed spectacularly but there was a reluctance to change because most politicians were scared of losing votes if they were to tell the truth about the failed drug policy.

Writing about his dismissal as the Labour government's top drugs advisor last year, Prof Nutt said it was "a bruising experience being beaten up in public by the full weight of the government" but added that it had not changed his mind over drugs policy.

He said he established the Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs to "continue the work of gathering evidence and telling the public the truth about all drugs".

Prof Nutt added: "There are alternatives to the failed prohibition law enforcement approach. Many are already evidence-based and others worth testing."
 

Does anyone think it strange how NC or DC have not come out with a no yet, and the only responses have been from an anonamous 'Home Office spokesperson'?

Now, take a look at this:

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/[…]/

Does anyone think it strange that the results of this will not be published until after the Proposition 19 vote in california is known?

I don't think it is strange. I think we can safely assume what NCs and DCs positions are. Do they even think for themselves? I doubt it.

I think we can say with a high degree of certainty that neither the result of Proposition 19 or this consultation are going to make any difference. Have a read through that consultation document. I will present this to you from that document

"In order to ensure that the UK has an effective statutory framework able to respond to emerging threats we will introduce a system of temporary bans on new psychoactive substances or so called “legal highs”."

Does this sound like something out of a consultation. If the government has already decided to ban anything that could be taken with the intention of getting high it is not likely they are going to even consider repealing prohibition.

Do not fool yourselves or get your hopes up.

What I do find strange is that we allow ourselves to be ruled by a corporate state who's only intention is to farm us like animals for profit. We have given an inch and many miles have been taken and many more will be taken. Prohibition is a small although major part of this in terms of conditioning us to accept rule by law in place of the rule of law. Now we even allow ourselves to be forced to pay to imprison our fellow human beings for the invented artificial crime of growing the wrong plant or consuming the wrong substances.

While large numbers of MP's have an interest in Alcohol, Tobacco & Drugs companies NOTHING WILL CHANGE.

THEY ARE ALL HYPOCRITES....

Government sponsered drugs are OK - the rest will get you locked up.

Regarding what I posted above about Article 61 of the Magna Carta and the concept of lawful rebelion after much research I have come to the conclusion that this is a dead end. Article 61 has been repealed. One of the key principles of our system is that no parliament can make decisions which bind subsequent parliments so anything from the bill of rights and the magna carta can lawfully be repealed and mostly has been.(This is in conflict with DC's assertion that now the lisborn treaty has been signed there is nothing he can do about it.) The most complete, civil and well research debate I came across on this subject was on a forum ukpoliceonline. I was very impressed and in the process of reading the debate here my level of respect for our police force has increased dramaticaly and it was not low to begin with. Sure there are bad apples and the system they work within has seriously problems but it seems the vast majority hold themselves to the highest of standards.

Unfortunately though it seems there is nothing we can do about the problem of prohibition while we keep electing the same MP's and really we only have ourselves to blame for that. We do get the government we deserve. It is my opinion that our government is fundametally corrupt regardless of if it is Labour, Conservative or Lib Dem. To me a few signs that this was no longer the case would be:

-----------------

Full respect for fundamental liberties which governments cannot grant us(they are our natural rights) but can take away. Repealing the prohibition of drugs would be one manifestion of this. Repealing any law that does not fully respect the concept of innocent until proven guilty and our privacy would be another. This would be done without consultation. Fundamental liberties should not be held hostage to the tyranny of the majority. The opinion of the majority is to easily manipulated by our media.

A recognition of the fact that fiat money and fractional reserve banking is inherently fraudulent and a plan to dissolve our central bank and return us to a honest currency. A robust and fairer economy would naturally result from this.

Recognition that the state becoming indebted to private entities is a slippery slope and a plan not just to reduce our deficit but to repay our debt entirely and never put the people into debt again.

--------------------------------

This is what I mean when I say that the prohibition of some drugs is a small but important part of far deeper problems.

It is my opinion that until we see these things we can be sure that we do not have a government that is operating in the best interests of all the people, but rather as I say is essentially farming us like animals for the profit of a few. Clearly despite all this government has said these litmus tests of mine are not passed.

The only way I see for us to get anywhere is to forget entirely our party bias, be prepared to vote for parties we have never voted for before and vote strictly on an 'if your in your out' basis until these tests are passed. I think though the vast majority are so hopelessly lost in our political ideologies and bias that this will never happen.

http://www.lca-uk.org/node/8

Sign up and add more weight to the pro legalisation lobby.

Government will have a shit show in hell trying to enforce these pathetic laws.

hahahahahahahaha

http://www.guardian.co.uk/[…]/cannabis-factories-narcotics-europe

Legal Cannabis Please

The Home Office has restated its position on drugs, after the outgoing president of the Royal College of Physicians called for a review of the law.

Speaking to the BBC, Sir Ian Gilmore said that the 'the present policy of prohibition is not a success'.

HOME OFFICE RESPONSE:

Drugs cause misery? (Prohabition of drugs causes misery)
Responding to Sir Ian’s comments, a Home Office idiot said: 'Drugs such as heroin, cocaine and cannabis are extremely harmful and can cause misery to communities across the country. Even though I have been paid to lie about this issue I am just another cog in the evil prohabition machine. I know that cannabis is safe, but hey I have to put dinner on the table even though I know I am responsible for thousands of deaths especially in Mexico as I am too much of a pussy to opt for a pradigm shift. Never mind I like my comfort zone.

'The government does not believe that decriminalisation is the right approach. We wish to see more cases of overdose from dirty drugs, gangsters in 6.5LTR AMG Mercs armed with machine guns and more cases of HIV as we hate drug usrs. Remember we are at war with the people OK! Our priorities are clear; we want to INCREASE drug use and drug related crime and disorder and help addicts come into contact with criminals and dirty drugs for good.' We love the power we have and do not care about you. Have a nice day.

Corrupt governments are extremely harmful. Over the next decade as our fraudulent financial system which our corrupt government has gone all in with our money to 'save' transfers the last of the wealth of the nation to a few and subsequently implodes we will get to see just how harmful they are. Perhaps then we might stop electing them.

To tell you the truth im getting kinda pissed off with this whole government thing. They know whats the best option why don't they just do a damn press release with correct scientific confirmation and let the public go wild . .... im so pissed off that i classed as a criminal then alcohol induced rage causes the general public so much mess. Never mind any of the public reactionary shit im fed of also of the government been so afraid of public opinion when its public opinion tha

.. yep im that pissed with governmental inadequacies that i pressed the enter button too early on my rage out...,

Brings up a valid point though... You do make me rage on so much because you dont have the balls to carry out common sense.

What we the people are now DEMANDING from our government is:

1. An end to oppression of drug users (at least 10 million citizens)
2. Removal from the criminal law of any offence for possession and/or social supply
3. Fact and evidence-based policy, information and regulation

The National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee have both criticised the government for basing drugs policy on opinion rather than facts and evidence.

Julian Critchley, former director of the Cabinet Office's Anti-Drug Coordination Unit says his colleagues "were forced to repeat the nonsensical mantra that the government would be ‘tough on drugs’, even though they all knew the government’s policy was actually causing harm.”

On cannabis, even this month the Home Office are disgracefully promoting propaganda in direct contradiction to the advice of its own scientific experts on the ACMD.

The continued prohibition of cannabis is absurd and the refusal of access to medicinal cannabis for patients is an obscene infringement of their human rights.

Support the Legalise Cannabis Alliance! Make a difference here NOW!
http://www.lca-uk.org/node/19

http://www.peter-reynolds.co.uk

Another story to prove heavy-handed prohibition doesn't work but creates violence....

http://news.uk.msn.com/[…]/articles.aspx?cp-documentid=154470718

OK folks. After spending much time getting across coherent arguments for a responsible and sensible drug policy, it is clear that this exercise was completely and utterly pointless sooo...

I've decided to become a drug dealer when I finish my current job :o)

I think I'm clever enough to evade the police (survival of the fittest out there).
Profits are guaranteed for another 5 years and non-taxable.
I can bulk my drugs up with crap to make even more money.
The demand is very large and will remain so, perhaps increase.
Jobs are hard to come by these days, and it is simply easier and more profitable to deal drugs, and claim benefits too.
Thanks UK Govt!!

Tongue in cheek; but not so very far away from the truth about the way I feel about this.

The Home Office has restated its position on drugs, after the outgoing president of the Royal College of Physicians called for a review of the law.

Speaking to the BBC, Sir Ian Gilmore said that the 'the present policy of prohibition is not a success'.

HOME OFFICE RESPONSE:

Drugs cause misery? (Prohabition of drugs causes misery)
Responding to Sir Ian’s comments, a Home Office idiot said: 'Drugs such as heroin, cocaine and cannabis are extremely harmful and can cause misery to communities across the country. Even though I have been paid to lie about this issue I am just another cog in the evil prohabition machine. I know that cannabis is safe, but hey I have to put dinner on the table even though I know I am responsible for thousands of deaths especially in Mexico as I am too much of a pussy to opt for a pradigm shift. Never mind I like my comfort zone.

'The government does not believe that decriminalisation is the right approach. We wish to see more cases of overdose from dirty drugs, gangsters in 6.5LTR AMG Mercs armed with machine guns and more cases of HIV as we hate drug usrs. Remember we are at war with the people OK! Our priorities are clear; we want to INCREASE drug use and drug related crime and disorder and help addicts come into contact with criminals and dirty drugs for good.' We love the power we have and do not care about you. Have a nice day.

Government consults on the new drugs policy – after deciding what it will be of course.Posted in August 26th, 2010 by UKCIA in News and commentEver had the feeling of Déjà vu? The British government has announced it’s interested in hearing people’s views about the future direction of drugs policy before it launches it’s new strategy so you can tell them how good you think it is – it’s all a part of David Cameron’s “Big Society” idea apparently. Sadly, just like the last time this was done under Labour when they announced the “consultation”, they have also announced what they intend to do anyway and in particular they have no intention of changing the basic approach; any moves towards significant law reform are off the agenda, there will be no debate about the merits or otherwise of prohibition.

As the Home Office states on its consultation website – where everyone is invited to make their comments, for what it’s worth. Please do add your comments and treat the whole sham exercise with the respect it deserves.

Ministers have agreed the new strategic vision and broad themes for the Drug Strategy which will set the framework for the future delivery of drugs policy.

So they’ve decided what they intend to do and are now asking for comments. If this all seems a little pointless, well yes it is, it’s clearly no more than a PR exercise of the sort many of us hoped had died with the last government, but seemingly is still with us. So what can we expect from this all new policy where nothing has changed?

The overall focus and scope of the strategy will be all illegal drugs. However, for those activities where a joint drugs and alcohol approach is appropriate, this is recognised, particularly in the areas of prevention, treatment and recovery. The strategy will take a broad approach to preventing and reducing substance misuse of whatever type.

This statement shows a certain degree of confused thinking right from the start. The term “illegal drugs” is not only pedantically incorrect – they are “prohibited” of course, not “illegal”, but at least they don’t use the totally incorrect term “controlled”. More importantly the term “illegal drugs” covers a huge range of substances each as different as chalk and cheese, yet they are discussed as if they are a single substance.

What is really wrong with this statement is that it continues the false idea that alcohol isn’t really a drug, it promotes the idea that a range of policies is correct for alcohol and a totally different – often totally opposite – range of policies are correct for everything else and just occasionally there might be a few overlaps where the same approach can be applied to “both”. We’re not off to a good start.

Worse, no mention is made here of problem drug use connected with prescribed medication, although it is touched on, briefly, much later.

So what do they have in mind for the new policy? The questionnaire has four main sections, the first being the “vision” thing, which doesn’t seem to see medical drugs at all:

Section 1: Vision for the New Drug Strategy

The Home Office will lead the new Drug Strategy to prevent drug taking, disrupt drug supply, strengthen enforcement and promote drug treatment with the focus on enabling people to become free of their addictions, including alcohol, to recover fully and contribute to society.

So clearly this is firmly rooted in the tired and failed mantra of a war on drugs – drug “control” through “prevention” (a euphemism for criminalisation), supply side reduction and general enforcement. This from a government which is constantly telling us we have a public finance crisis and everything provided by the public sector is facing cuts of 25% or more – including the police, yet there seems to have been no willingness to examine the cost effectiveness of the enforcement approach and – it seems – a strong desire to throw even more money at it. Something doesn’t add up.

Also of interest is the desire to “promote drug treatment with the focus on enabling people to become free of their addictions, including alcohol, to recover fully and contribute to society”. We have heard already of plans to force problem drug users into treatment by withholding benefit payments, it would seem that at the root of the thinking is the prohibitionist philosophy that “recovery” means “abstinence”, all that’s needed to make people recover is to get them to quit all drug (“illegal” drug and alcohol) use. This is naive logic even more faith based than we’ve endured over the past 13 years.

Worse, it makes this statement:

A more holistic approach with drugs issues being assessed and tackled alongside other issues such as alcohol abuse, child protection, mental health, employment and housing.

“Alongside other issues such as alcohol abuse” – just to confirm the idea that alcohol isn’t a drug of course. Is all use abuse? Reading this sometimes it seems so, but surely not?

On the basic issue of forcing people into abstinence based rehab, as Andrew M Brown wrote in the Telegraph on Monday 23rd August “Cameron’s radical drug policy is all very well, but addicts need a reason to get better”

The thing is, it’s easy to sound impressively uncompromising when you talk about addiction in the abstract. But addiction is an unusual medical problem in the sense that in many cases the patient doesn’t want to get better. Kindness and love very often are not enough to “cure” an addict, so it’s hard to see how punishment is likely to fare any better. Addicts may not have a disease – that’s a matter for debate – but they are certainly sick.

He goes on to say that forcing people into rehab will simply lower the already low success rate and add to the “revolving door” routine of failed clients; of course he is right. Unless the government is planning to spend a huge amount more on residential rehab of dubious effectiveness (in which case which other aspect of drugs policy gets cut?) this whole approach is going nowhere. The idea that you can force people into good health is just plain daft.

The key word is “enabling”, that doesn’t – or shouldn’t – mean “forcing”. Of course it is reasonable that treatment should be available to anyone who really wants it and all too often it hasn’t been, but as Andrew Brown says the only people who stand a chance of success in quitting drugs are those who are deeply motivated to do so. Just providing that level of access to treatment will cost a huge amount of money though, all of it extra money, it simply isn’t going to happen.

“recovery” is a word bandied around a lot in this document, just what does this word really mean? Well, it’s not actually defined anywhere in the Home Office consultation beyond the above, but the policy seems to be based on it. Basing a policy on an ill-defined term is risky to put it mildly and means this whole exercise is little more than tough talking rhetoric.

Of course, the vast, vast majority of drug users – be it illegal drugs or alcohol the-not-really-a-drug – are not problematic users and do not have an addiction. So should the policy apply to all drugs or only those which cause the biggest problems? Amazingly this is actually a question asked in the consultation, although it comes not in the basic “vision” section but in the next part and it’s not even the first question asked there.

Section 2: Prevent drug use – Department for Education lead:

Acting early, particularly with young people, can help stop drug and alcohol problems from developing.

Can it? Well maybe although how you act early with old people isn’t clear.

The reasons that people come to misuse drugs or alcohol are complex, influenced by personal, community and societal factors. And while we know that adolescence is typically the point at which misuse starts, prevention strategies need to consider the full range of these factors

It is reasonable – desirable of course – to have a policy to keep kids away from drugs, that goes without saying, but to assume that keeping “young people” away from drugs will prevent addiction problems later in life is a bit of an assumption and seems based on the “progression” idea of starting with cannabis and escalating to heroin.

What do they mean by “young people”? Again the term isn’t defined, does it mean children, or teens or late teens or early 20′s? Is there a point where a policy designed for children stops and a policy designed for adults begins? This, of course, isn’t discussed.

What do they mean by “misuse”? As they are talking about “drugs and alcohol” here they presumably accept that not all use is misuse. So do they accept people can “use” drugs? If so, is the policy supposed to prevent “use” or just “misuse” in young adults?

Again it’s all so shallow, way too shallow for such a complex issue. As if to acknowledge this we get a real stinker of a question here:

Question B4: Which drugs (including alcohol) should prevention programmes focus on?

* Those that cause the most harm
* Those that are most widely used
* All drugs

This is one of those questions which is easy to ask but produces a real nightmare for the prohibitionist mind, because if the answer is the first or second option efforts need to be focused on alcohol. If the answer is “all drugs” then you have to give the same message to (apparently) two entirely different substances – alcohol and “drugs” and waste a lot of time effort and money trying to prevent something that isn’t going to be a problem.

This should have been the first question in the “vision” section if it is to mean anything, it needs to be a question relating to the whole application of the policy

Section 3: “Joint Home Office and Ministry of Justice lead”

As part of the full assessment on sentencing policy, we will ensure that sentencing for drug use helps offenders come off drugs

Here we go again, using the criminal justice system to enforce a healthy lifestyle. This section is all about how to use enforcement to “control” drugs – it seems to ignore all the experience of the past 40-odd years by basing the plans on the assumption that drugs can be controlled through enforcement, there is no evidence that this is the case of course and much to suggest it isn’t

Interestingly though the first question asked in this section is

Question C1: When does drug use become problematic?

Why is that question asked here? Again, this should have been a question asked early on in the “vision” section. It should also be followed by a question asking whether non-problematic drug use should be the focus of enforcement activities at least in the same way or to the same extent as problematic use, but it isn’t. Why it’s asked here is unclear.

Section 4: “Rebalance treatment to support drug free outcomes – Department of Health lead” – This is all about enforcing abstinence through the health service, quite scary stuff potentially.

We recognise that drug addiction is a complex disorder that has serious health costs and causes serious harm to the community. Whilst reducing harm is an important component of treatment, promoting and supporting recovery and a drug free lifestyle is the ultimate aim.

Is addiction in and of itself the cause of such problems? This is pure rhetoric; addiction as such doesn’t automatically lead to serious health issues or harm to the community. Addiction to nicotine, although severe for example doesn’t lead to harm for the community and the health effects of nicotine addiction are caused almost entirely by the method the addiction is serviced – ie smoking. Much the same point can be made for heroin and there are plenty of examples of people with a long term medical addiction to heroin living long lives and causing no problems whatsoever. Many of the social and health harms caused by addiction to prohibited heroin are caused by prohibition; there are many issues here, it isn’t as simple and as clear cut as this implies but no discussion of this is allowed.

The phrasing of this is interesting as well: “promoting and supporting recovery and a drug free lifestyle” would seem to accept that “recovery” and “a drug free lifestyle” are not necessarily the same thing?

Question D3: Are there situations in which drug and alcohol services might be more usefully brought together or are there situations where it is more useful for them to be operated separately?

Again, they really don’t seem to know what to do about this totally false “drug and alcohol” distinction, which only exists because of the legal distinction at the heart of the policy. The only “advantage” in treating “drugs and alcohol” as separate issues would seem be in order to support the drugs policy and to re-enforce this false distinction.

Question D4: Should there be a greater focus on treating people who use substances other than heroin or crack cocaine, such as powder cocaine and so called legal highs?

This question is strange, why are “legal highs” mentioned like this? This is supposed to be a Dept of Health lead section, surely the only issue here should be what to do with people who have a problem with a particular drug?

At least they finally get around to mentioning the issue of other “legal” (un-prohibited) drugs other than alcohol

Question D5: Should treating addiction to legal substances, such as prescribed and over-the-counter medicines, be a higher priority?

That is the only mention of medical drugs, which is really quite shocking for a drugs policy, but that’s what you get when you base your thinking on rhetoric.

Section 5: Support recovery to break cycle of drug addiction – Department for Work and Pensions lead: Another section dedicated to forcing people into a healthy lifestyle.

The coalition government believes in an approach to tackling drug and alcohol dependency that is firmly rooted in the concept of recovery and reintegration, as a process through which an individual is enabled to overcome the symptoms and causes of their dependency, and become an active and contributing member of society.

This is great, apart from the apparent lack of understanding the the person needs to want this outcome as has been mentioned, it really can’t be forced onto people who don’t want it. If we are talking about providing help to people who really want to lead a drug free lifestyle (or at least a life free of a certain drug) then yes, but we’re not really, are we?

This of course comes from a coalition government headed by David Cameron who once said

“Politicians attempt to appeal to the lowest common denominator by posturing with tough policies and calling for crackdown after crackdown. Drugs policy has been failing for decades.”

and

it would be “disappointing” if radical options on the law on cannabis were not looked at.

and Nick Clegg who heads the Libdems, a party which once upon a time (before they got elected) had a radical, sensible drugs policy which seemed to call for the eventual legalisation of cannabis and which was a party proud to issue a document entitled Realism, Responsibility: Proposals for the Reform of Drugs Law (a document which was quietly taken down from the Libdem website a while back, but is still available at Transform). All this proves that politicians aren’t to be trusted if you can see their lips move, but we knew that already.

The final comment to all this is that the one drug not addressed in this “consultation” scam is cannabis, the most widely used and popular of the prohibited drugs of course. Perhaps they hope that if they don’t say anything about it, cannabis will just go away? What do you intend to do about non-problematic cannabis use by adults Mr Cameron, and why?

The government and home office support lies about cannabis.

Here is some truth:

New UK study suggests minimal relationship between cannabis and schizophrenia or psychosis
Last year the UK government reclassified cannabis from a class C to a class B drug, partly out of concerns that cannabis, especially the more potent varieties, may increase the risk of schizophrenia in young people. But the evidence for the relationship between cannabis and schizophrenia or psychosis remains controversial. A new study has determined that it may be necessary to stop thousands of cannabis users in order to prevent a single case of schizophrenia.

Scientists from Bristol, Cambridge and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine took the latest information on numbers of cannabis users, the risk of developing schizophrenia, and the risk that cannabis use causes schizophrenia to estimate how many cannabis users may need to be stopped to prevent one case of schizophrenia. The study found it would be necessary to stop 2800 heavy cannabis users in young men and over 5000 heavy cannabis users in young women to prevent a single case of schizophrenia. Among light cannabis users, those numbers rise to over 10,000 young men and nearly 30,000 young women to prevent one case of schizophrenia.

That's just part of the story. Interventions to prevent cannabis use typically do not succeed for every person who is treated. Depending on how effective an intervention is at preventing cannabis use, it would be necessary to treat even higher numbers of users to achieve the thousands of successful results necessary to prevent a very few cases of schizophrenia.

Matt Hickman, one of the authors of the report published last week in the scholarly journal Addiction, said that "preventing cannabis use is important for many reasons – including reducing tobacco and drug dependence and improving school performance. But our evidence suggests that focusing on schizophrenia may have been misguided. Our research cannot resolve the question whether cannabis causes schizophrenia, but does show that many people need to give up cannabis in order to have an impact on the number of people with schizophrenia. The likely impact of re-classifying cannabis in the UK on schizophrenia or psychosis incidence is very uncertain."

Source: Eureka Alert! (23/10/09)

before legislating on prohibited substances (specifically cannabis) we must examine the following issues.

*economical
*sociological
*medical
*moral

revenue and employment generated through the cultivation, harvesting, haulage and sale of cannabis including it's uses as a renewable energy source (the fact hemp threatened the petro-chemical and paper pulp industry was the reason for its illegality in the first place) combined with the money saved in policing an unenforcable prohibition would far outweigh any extra pressure on the NHS (although there is no evidence there would be any more pressure)and would relieve the overburdened police force.

pushing otherwise innocent tax paying citizens into the open hands of the black market is the only explanation of why cannabis is considered a "gateway drug". As we are all aware black market drug sales also perpetuates serious crimes such as gang warfare for business and funds terrorism.

the evidence for the medical benefits of cannabis have been detailed at great length by experts in the relevant fields. there is NO link between cannabis use and "braincell death", cancer or any other spurious accusations leveled against it.

Its is a human right to use non lethal recreational drugs as illustrated by the exclusion of alcohol and tobacco from the dangerous substances act.

Would you beleive it ?

The Governments Own 'Experts' do not know what EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE is !

www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/data_to_back_up_claims_made_abou

I wonder if any of the Daily Newspapers are going to cover this story, as it should be front page news.

The more you read the government retoric the less they seem to be in contact with reality.

They will never win the war on drugs because its a phoney war no one but the government thinks they are going to win.

Drugs are just another commodity - there will always be a demand so there should be a legal regulated supply.

If they keep drugs illegal the eventually they will catch a lot of drug users and criminalise them - but if they cannot even keep drugs out of prisons so how do they hope to stop drugs in the open market.

A wise man once said...

"If you can't beat them - join them".

Legalise, Regulate, Control, Educate & Tax drugs and deprive criminals of a huge revenue stream.

LOL

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/[…]/decriminalisation-wrong

It appears that they have removed the reference to cannabis as being 'extremely harmful'.

"Drugs such as heroin, cocaine and cannabis are extremely harmful and can cause misery to communities across the country."

Now reads:
"Drugs such as heroin and cocaine are extremely harmful and can cause misery to communities across the country."

Aside from the fact that alcohol and tobacco are also extremely harmful, but prohibition of these doesn't exacerbate the problem...

Is this finally acknowledgement that cannabis is not 'extremely harmful'? It's a start I suppose.

Now what are you going to do about it Mr. Brokenshire? Still punish people for using it responsibly? Just bury your head in the sand?

If they had an ounce of honesty in them it would read

"Policies such as prohibition of some drugs are extremely harmful and cause misery in communities across the country"

Politicians are just self serving weather veins chasing a career and pay packet.

The master stroke is making this sham website and having people think it's anything other than a virtual waste paper basket.

http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/[…]/article.html

...and another heroin user dies due to injecting heroin contaminated with Anthrax.

Accordingly the above newspaper there have been 5 confirmed cases in England of anthrax seen in an injecting drug user since December 2009 - 4 of them died. In Scotland there have seen 47 cases for the same period - 13 of which died.

I hope all the Prohibitionists and Politicians that refuse to review UK drugs policy and move towards controlled legalised drugs feel partly responsible for these deaths.

It is truly disgraceful that politicians like Cameron and Clegg put their own wage packet and career before reviewing and amending drug policies that they know would save lives. We all know they agree with moving towards legalisation – but now they are in power they have simply backed down rather than risk any backlash.

On the news today - 1,000,000 hospitalisations - 15,500 deaths.

That's from Alcohol abuse in the UK last year and 25% consume more than the reccomended number of units per week.

How many hospitalisations/deaths from cannabis abuse?

Very few if any. The government estimate 10% of the population have used/use cannabis in the last month.

BAN ALCOHOL and make it CLASS-A or LEGALISE CANNABIS.

I also spotted the anthrax in heroin warning poster a few weeks ago when I was picking up another months worth of opiate-based painkillers on prescription and flagged it up on a couple of threads here and some "other forums I frequent".

The government have got their deaths on their hands because of prohibition.