Decriminalising drug use, Good or Bad Idea?

[davieG]

Decriminalising drug use could drastically reduce crime and improve health, the outgoing president of the Royal College of Physicians has said.

Sir Ian Gilmore said the laws on misuse of drugs should be reviewed and that their supply should be regulated.

He says he formed his view after seeing the problems caused by dirty needles and contaminated drugs first hand in the patients he has treated.

The government said it did not believe this was the right approach.

In a parting e-mail to 25,000 RCP members, which Sir Ian said expressed his own views rather than those of the RCP, he wrote that he felt like finishing his presidency on a "controversial note"

He endorsed a recent article in the British Medical Journal by Stephen Rolles, from the think tank Transform Drug Policy Foundation, which argued that the policy of prohibition had harmed public health, encouraged organised crime and fuelled corruption.

Sir Ian told the BBC: "Everyone who has looked at this in a serious and sustained way concludes that the present policy of prohibition is not a success.

"There are really strong arguments to look again."

Sir Ian said he had had a longstanding interest in the subject, stemming from his work as a liver specialist.

"Every day in our hospital wards we see drug addicts with infections from dirty needles, we see heroin addicts with complications from contaminated drugs," he said.

He argued that many of the problems health staff encountered were the consequences not of heroin itself, but of prohibition.

In his e-mail, Sir Ian wrote: "I personally back the chairman of the UK Bar Council, Nicholas Green QC, when he calls for drug laws to be reconsidered with a view to decriminalising illicit drugs use. This could drastically reduce crime and improve health," he wrote.

In his recent report to the Bar Council, Mr Green said there was growing evidence that decriminalising personal use could free up police resources, reduce crime and improve public health.

Mr Rolles - whose recent BMJ article Sir Ian cited in his e-mail - told BBC Radio 4's Today programme their arguments were "built on a critique of the failure of the last 40 or 50 years".

He said the "punitive criminal justice-driven war on drugs" had delivered the opposite of its goals.

"That is provoking a debate on what the alternative approaches are and the one that we are calling for is legally regulated production supply."

He said those who found such a proposal difficult to stomach needed to "accept the pragmatic reality that demand for drugs exists now".

"[That demand] will be met one way or another, and we have a choice - we can either leave that supply in the hands of the worse possible people - the illegal market controlled by violent criminal profiteers - or we can control it by appropriate authorities in ways that will reduce the harm that it causes."

He called on the government to look at the evidence and assess the current policy compared with the alternatives, instead of following the "traditional political grandstanding and moral posturing which has characterised drugs policy over the last few decades".

In a statement the Royal College of Physicians said a joint report in 2000 with the Royal College of Psychiatrists had called for much greater investment in research and in treatment programmes.

The RCP said it was hoping to review the report's findings under its new president, Sir Richard Thompson.

A spokesperson for the Home Office 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."

Dominic CascianiBBC News home affairs correspondentDecriminalising and legalisation of drugs are not the same.

If controlled drugs like heroin, cannabis and Ecstasy were legal, they would be freely available to buy in the same way as an adult can buy beer: anyone could trade in them.

Hypothetically, if prohibited drugs were decriminalised, the government would license and attempt to control manufacture, quality, purity and supply - and possession for personal use would not lead to prosecution.

But if you tried to trade in the drugs by offering your own supply, you would still fall foul of the law.

Supporters of decriminalisation say it should be combined with diverting money from police to drug treatment services because criminal trafficking would dry up.

The government says decriminalisation sends the wrong message and encourages young people to assume substances are not harmful.

[Finnegan]

There's a fantastic section in Nick Davies' Flat Earth News about the misrepresentation of drugs and their alleged dangers in the media and it's always been the case, for absolutely decades.

The staggering percentage of the population are massively ignorant to the ACTUAL dangers of drugs. The problem being that this ignorance spreads all the way to the very top.

The real danger has always been the industry and not the product. An industry that could legitimately be bringing in billions in tax and creating countless thousands of jobs if it were legalized and regulated intelligently. Even those that actually have died of over-duses or drug misuses could have been avoided if we properly educated and sensibly approached the issue of substance use instead of panicking about it.

But you'll never get through the ignorant brick wall of "drugs are bad," because in the minds of so, so many people it's just a fact.

[davieG]

There's a fantastic section in Nick Davies' Flat Earth News about the misrepresentation of drugs and their alleged dangers in the media and it's always been the case, for absolutely decades.

The staggering percentage of the population are massively ignorant to the ACTUAL dangers of drugs. The problem being that this ignorance spreads all the way to the very top.

The real danger has always been the industry and not the product. An industry that could legitimately be bringing in billions in tax and creating countless thousands of jobs if it were legalized and regulated intelligently. Even those that actually have died of over-duses or drug misuses could have been avoided if we properly educated and sensibly approached the issue of substance use instead of panicking about it.

But you'll never get through the ignorant brick wall of "drugs are bad," because in the minds of so, so many people it's just a fact.

I've an open mind on this and can see it happening sometime but we've hardly got ourselves a good example with alcohol which is a drug that is seemingly out of control for many users and results in the death of so many.

[dandannieldanok]

If I become a parent in the future the last thing I'd want to see is my 18 year old son or daughter come home carrying bagfuls of drugs they'd bought.

[Edmund]

Bad idea.

The only positive is the end product will be high quality but many drugs (coke, crack, heroin even weed) are still addictive meaning people will still go out their way to obtain the drugs i.e. steal.

It's still baffling how alcohol is legal but weed isn't considering how much money is spent policing the streets on a weekend.

Weed and maybe shrooms are the only things that should be decriminilsed if any.

[fatmando]

If I become a parent in the future the last thing I'd want to see is my 18 year old son or daughter come home carrying bagfuls of drugs they'd bought.

Whether they are legal or not they could still buy them.

[Head Honcho]

This is a bad idea on so many levels.

[Head Honcho]

Whether they are legal or not they could still buy them.

Yeh but they wouldn't be bringing them home like a bag of pick and mix though would they?

[fatmando]

Yeh but they wouldn't be bringing them home like a bag of pick and mix though would they?

You miss my point. They can bring them home even 'like a bag of pick and mix' whether legal or not. This is teenagers and drugs we're talking about. Getting hold of drugs when your a teenager is very easy. If your under 18 it's probably easier to get your hands on drugs than alcohol as your local dealer won't 'i.d' you when you buy them. Plus your average 18 year old could just as easy come home with a legal 'pick and mix' of vodka, whiskey, red wine, mephadrone, red bull, paracetamol, etc, etc and do themselves some proper damage. No difference with some currently illegal drugs.

I think legalisation of some drugs would be a good idea but I think you would need to have to like, sign for them or something so the state knew what and how much you were using. Like a prescription. Then they could keep an close eye on the vulnerable and stuff. Would create loads of jobs, people would be made more aware of effects, more tax for the country, less expense locking up small time users and dealers. The list of reasons goes on.

[Steven]

I've an open mind on this and can see it happening sometime but we've hardly got ourselves a good example with alcohol which is a drug that is seemingly out of control for many users and results in the death of so many.

Indeed and is why it should be subject to the same controls as other so called harmful substances.

We should be mindful that about 50,000 people die every year in the UK from small particles in the atmosphere. If the Government were really concerned about that and the countless old people who die from having inadequate heating and did something about these issues first then I might take seriously what they have to say about the 2000 or so deaths from both legal and illegal drugs in the UK.

[FoxyPV]

It's a good idea in theory but won't work in practice. The more addictive drugs will still result in people stealing etc to get money for another hit and still lead to all the social problems that are resultant of any form of addiction.

By legalising these drugs the govt makes it socially acceptable to take them and therefore more people will take them thus increasing the risk of more addictions and their inherent problems. The argument may be put forth that drug use is massively widespread anyway so what's the problem, but isn't as commonplace as many in the media etc would make out. I spent most of my teenage years taking drugs but had many friends who wouldn't because they were illegal (I pointed out the irony of their underage drinking being precisely that but it fell on deaf ears).

Legalisation would give drugs a legitimacy that they don't deserve.

[Steven]

It's a good idea in theory but won't work in practice. The more addictive drugs will still result in people stealing etc to get money for another hit and still lead to all the social problems that are resultant of any form of addiction.

By legalising these drugs the govt makes it socially acceptable to take them and therefore more people will take them thus increasing the risk of more addictions and their inherent problems. The argument may be put forth that drug use is massively widespread anyway so what's the problem, but isn't as commonplace as many in the media etc would make out. I spent most of my teenage years taking drugs but had many friends who wouldn't because they were illegal (I pointed out the irony of their underage drinking being precisely that but it fell on deaf ears).

Legalisation would give drugs a legitimacy that they don't deserve.

Criminalisation gives drugs a pre-eminence that they don't deserve.

[dandannieldanok]

You miss my point. They can bring them home even 'like a bag of pick and mix' whether legal or not. This is teenagers and drugs we're talking about. Getting hold of drugs when your a teenager is very easy. If your under 18 it's probably easier to get your hands on drugs than alcohol as your local dealer won't 'i.d' you when you buy them. Plus your average 18 year old could just as easy come home with a legal 'pick and mix' of vodka, whiskey, red wine, mephadrone, red bull, paracetamol, etc, etc and do themselves some proper damage. No difference with some currently illegal drugs.

I think legalisation of some drugs would be a good idea but I think you would need to have to like, sign for them or something so the state knew what and how much you were using. Like a prescription. Then they could keep an close eye on the vulnerable and stuff. Would create loads of jobs, people would be made more aware of effects, more tax for the country, less expense locking up small time users and dealers. The list of reasons goes on.

Disagree completely. I'm a teenager (for another month anyway), and I wouldn't have the first clue about where to purchase any drugs in my local area. I've never seen drugs being dealt in my life. It's not 'easy' at all. I do concur with what you say about alcohol, which should be a lot more expensive than it is (well, the high % stuff should be hiked up in price anyway).

If you're going to go to the trouble of signing for them then surely that's enough to tell you drugs aren't really fit for wholesome public consumption, otherwise you'd just sell them like sweets over the counter. By suggesting that you are admitting that they are harmful and people can't be trusted with them. I also disagree with the statement "people would be made more aware of effects". If they're made available and legalised then surely people are going to think "oh they must be ok", and will in fact think a whole lot less before making the choice to consume them. You've also not considered the huge problem of addiction. And also how easy it will be for underage kids to get hold of them, who can just pay some adult to go in and buy some for them, trust me plenty of adults are willing to do it with alcohol unfortunately. What I would say is, think of your own children (either literally or hypothetically if you don't have any), would you be happy with them buying drugs?

[fatmando]

Disagree completely. I'm a teenager (for another month anyway), and I wouldn't have the first clue about where to purchase any drugs in my local area. I've never seen drugs being dealt in my life. It's not 'easy' at all. I do concur with what you say about alcohol, which should be a lot more expensive than it is (well, the high % stuff should be hiked up in price anyway).

If you're going to go to the trouble of signing for them then surely that's enough to tell you drugs aren't really fit for wholesome public consumption, otherwise you'd just sell them like sweets over the counter. By suggesting that you are admitting that they are harmful and people can't be trusted with them. I also disagree with the statement "people would be made more aware of effects". If they're made available and legalised then surely people are going to think "oh they must be ok", and will in fact think a whole lot less before making the choice to consume them. You've also not considered the huge problem of addiction. And also how easy it will be for underage kids to get hold of them, who can just pay some adult to go in and buy some for them, trust me plenty of adults are willing to do it with alcohol unfortunately. What I would say is, think of your own children (either literally or hypothetically if you don't have any), would you be happy with them buying drugs?

OK well, my life and experiences are very different to yours.

Of course addiction would still need to be tackled.....I think it would be easier to tackle though if the addicted were no longer regarded as criminals.

[Bellend Sebastian]

It's probably about the fifth time I've posted this link on here but for those interested, the Transform Drug Policy Foundation are probably the most active organisation campaigning for reform of the current drug laws.

I was going to write a long and rambling post about this as I feel very strongly about it, but Transform's lovely leaflet explains the situation more succinctly and coherently than I ever could, so if you're remotely interested, I recommend you have a look at that.

I genuinely think that this is one of the most important political issues there is, mainly because I believe that with a bit of thought and some decisive action a massive, massive difference could be made that would improve the lives of many individuals and communities. If electoral candidates still bothered canvassing, I would have grilled them on this if any of them had turned up at my house (needless to say, they had a lucky escape because none did). It's much more on the agenda now than it ever was, but given its importance it's still not being debated as hotly as it should be in the corridors of power

[Finnegan]

The more addictive drugs will still result in people stealing etc to get money for another hit

Why, if it's reasonably priced? Why, if there's no stigma or illegality behind it?

What's the difference between heroin and nicotine in this context? If you can fuel a regular habit to one why not the other? People went for centuries regularly using opiates before they were eventually made illegal and they just fuelled their habit reasonably through a portion of their income.

Silly thing to say, in my opinion.

[Head Honcho]

You miss my point. They can bring them home even 'like a bag of pick and mix' whether legal or not. This is teenagers and drugs we're talking about. Getting hold of drugs when your a teenager is very easy. If your under 18 it's probably easier to get your hands on drugs than alcohol as your local dealer won't 'i.d' you when you buy them. Plus your average 18 year old could just as easy come home with a legal 'pick and mix' of vodka, whiskey, red wine, mephadrone, red bull, paracetamol, etc, etc and do themselves some proper damage. No difference with some currently illegal drugs.

I think legalisation of some drugs would be a good idea but I think you would need to have to like, sign for them or something so the state knew what and how much you were using. Like a prescription. Then they could keep an close eye on the vulnerable and stuff. Would create loads of jobs, people would be made more aware of effects, more tax for the country, less expense locking up small time users and dealers. The list of reasons goes on.

The key word though is "decriminalisation" and anyone who has taken drugs, should if they're honest, agree that they should in no way be decriminalised .

I mean I've seen hardcore dope fiends on spacecakes doing things you wouldn't believe, so imagine how the kids on the corner who would normally be doing a bottle of 20/20 would cope with it.

Unbelieveable that anyone should even be considering this!

[Edmund]

Why, if it's reasonably priced? Why, if there's no stigma or illegality behind it?

What's the difference between heroin and nicotine in this context? If you can fuel a regular habit to one why not the other? People went for centuries regularly using opiates before they were eventually made illegal and they just fuelled their habit reasonably through a portion of their income.

Silly thing to say, in my opinion.

I'm sorry Finners but you're either very naive or deluded. How many heroin addicts do you know have a steady job who would be able to buy these reasonably priced drugs?

Regardless of price the money has to come from somewhere to fund the habit

A regular crack head or heroin addict wont be able to sustain a job so you're back to square one. It's a vicious circle.

Comparing heroin and nicotine is silly in any context, the addiction and effects are completely different. As an ex smoker I had urges to start smoking again when I first quit but not so much to extent that I'd go on the rob to get another pack of fags or sit in bed cold turkeying.

I've never tried heroin so I couldn't give an accurate description of what the addiction must be like, but you only have to take a trip to a rehab centre and it says it all. You don't see people checking in because their trying to get off the camel lights. The physical addiction is on a completely different ball game.

The only real solution is to hand out drugs for free for those who are highly addicted. At least then they are doing it "safely" and the financial aspect is disregarded. You could argue that giving drugs away for free would be substantially cheaper in comparison to the amount of theft caused by addiction.

Your living in a dreamworld Finnegen if you think selling highly addictive drugs such as crack and heroin legally will have an effect on how a user obtains the finances.

[BoneDog]

Anyone tried that Ivory Wave yet? Sounds bangin

[James.]

It's probably about the fifth time I've posted this link on here but for those interested, the Transform Drug Policy Foundation are probably the most active organisation campaigning for reform of the current drug laws.

I was going to write a long and rambling post about this as I feel very strongly about it, but Transform's lovely leaflet explains the situation more succinctly and coherently than I ever could, so if you're remotely interested, I recommend you have a look at that.

I genuinely think that this is one of the most important political issues there is, mainly because I believe that with a bit of thought and some decisive action a massive, massive difference could be made that would improve the lives of many individuals and communities. If electoral candidates still bothered canvassing, I would have grilled them on this if any of them had turned up at my house (needless to say, they had a lucky escape because none did). It's much more on the agenda now than it ever was, but given its importance it's still not being debated as hotly as it should be in the corridors of power

I remember a thread you started ages ago that barely got any attention but explained very eloquently the benefits of decriminalising/legalising drugs.

It's crazy that a large number of drugs charities and people who actually work with drug addicts or are experts in the area think massive reforms are required yet no MP's have the balls to tackle the issue head on for fear of a media frenzy.

I feel strongly about this as well, but I won't make an arse of myself trying to put together an argument against some of the surprising naivety in this thread when that leaflet will do a far better job.

[Finnegan]

I'm sorry Finners but you're either very naive or deluded. How many heroin addicts do you know have a steady job who would be able to buy these reasonably priced drugs?

Regardless of price the money has to come from somewhere to fund the habit

A regular crack head or heroin addict wont be able to sustain a job so you're back to square one. It's a vicious circle.

Comparing heroin and nicotine is silly in any context, the addiction and effects are completely different. As an ex smoker I had urges to start smoking again when I first quit but not so much to extent that I'd go on the rob to get another pack of fags or sit in bed cold turkeying.

I've never tried heroin so I couldn't give an accurate description of what the addiction must be like, but you only have to take a trip to a rehab centre and it says it all. You don't see people checking in because their trying to get off the camel lights. The physical addiction is on a completely different ball game.

The only real solution is to hand out drugs for free for those who are highly addicted. At least then they are doing it "safely" and the financial aspect is disregarded. You could argue that giving drugs away for free would be substantially cheaper in comparison to the amount of theft caused by addiction.

Your living in a dreamworld Finnegen if you think selling highly addictive drugs such as crack and heroin legally will have an effect on how a user obtains the finances.

But how much do you actually know about the effects of heroin from reasonable or unbiased sources? What makes you say a human being can't sustain a normal life and a habit at the same time? From the eighteenth to the early twentieth century a staggering amount of Europe's population was almost permanently high, from the writing desks of bohemian novelists right up to the fronts of WW1.

We look at heroin users in contemporary society and we make our judgements from there without considering the broader context. We blame everything on the drug and we make assumptions about the drug based on these people without stopping to think about who they actually are. How many of the people living behind the bushes of Narborough Road North, injecting, were actually once successful businessmen or bankers that somehow plummeted down into a world of dark and despair purely because of a dangerous addiction?

Or how many, more realistically, were likely homeless and depressed to begin with and turned to a drug substitute for their happiness? Why do we as a society never turn around and think "actually, that guy's probably stealing handbags because he's in a desperate situation in life" and opt for the easier, yet when you actually think about it, completely ridiculous notion that an opiate has turned him into some sort of ravaging fiend?

Am I being naive or am I simply being willing to step back and think "well, alright, maybe we're not being told the complete truth." I don't want to sound like El Empty here but has it crossed your mind that we're so horribly uneducated about most modern narcotics that myths and mistruths are spread about like fact on a deeply rooted cultural basis? And it's not just the sensationalist tabloid readers or the right wind middle-class. I know student drug users who take a hard line on class A usage almost as a sort of justification for their weed habit. "It's alright, it's not like I'd ever take X."

The decriminalization of heroin wouldn't suddenly create millions of heroin addicts. Don't read this post and conveniently then miss out the following, that I don't advocate it's use, nor claim that someone's going to function 100% whilst using and I certainly wouldn't try it myself. But then I don't smoke either, I do have an extremely addictive personality and I don't really tend to expose my things to anything I'm likely to be hooked on.

But taking away the illegal element of heroin use, or at very lest declassify it, and you could not only deal a hugely stinging blow to an illicit trade that does far more harm than it's product and almost equally importantly, shed some light on an absolutely forgotten sector of British society that have been left to rot in bushes, alleyways, public housing, squats and wherever else. Anything to remove the stigma. Because currently we don't want to know, they're "just smackheads." Hardly an attitude that's ever going to help anyone.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2001/jun/14/drugsandalcohol.socialsciences

Bang, here we go.

[Bellend Sebastian]

I'm glad James and Finners are actively participating in this thread, it makes it all feel like slightly less of an uphill battle.

Heroin and employment!

The thing that I find perhaps the hardest thing to understand, both in the context of this thread and the distaste for reform in large sections of wider society, is the notion that it's the criminality of an activity has a major bearing on whether people do it or not, as if that's the only criteria that we base our decision making on. If it wasn't illegal to walk into Barclays and point a shotgun at a petrified member of counter staff and demand all the cash, I still wouldn't do it. Would you? I exaggerrate to make the point, of course. We have other reference points, our own moral code, our perception of the impact on other people, the benefit or otherwise for us personally, all working in conjunction to help us make a decision on what we do. The inference that if heroin, for example, were decriminalised that loads of people that wouldn't have taken it previously would go out and shoot up straightaway is to my mind pretty laughable, but for some reason a lot of folk seem to think that would happen. If your kids don't take heroin, I suspect that this has less to do with its criminality and more to do with them not wanting to be a smackhead.

This isn't about selling crack cocaine from Mercury News Shops anyway. It's about fixing a broken system, or a system that never worked in the first place. If the 'war on drugs' is so brilliant, how come there are as many hard drug users in the UK as there have ever been before, yet the price of hard drugs remains consistently low? That's a clear indication that despite spending billions on prohibition, it has next to no effect on supply. I just cannot see how anyone can argue that it's a good idea to place the control of what is still a valuable commodity in the hands of criminals

[James.]

See, these arguments make such blinding sense to me that I just can't get my head around people who maintain that keeping drugs illegal is the way forward. The problem seems to me that anyone who dares to propose an alternative is demonised by people who don't have the first clue about drug use and drug culture. And unfortunately these people have a very loud and very influential voice.

I'm not going to openly admit what I have or haven't done but I will say I've had a fair amount of exposure to people who use drugs recreationally. And I can guarantee that it rarely crossed their minds that what they were doing was illegal. The biggest problems with drugs being illegal are that there is no control over what is in them and very little information about the risks - so ironically people are put at more risk by the laws that are meant to protect them. And before people say "well you shouldn't do them then" - why not? Humans will always want to get off their heads, it's in their nature.

[davieG]

I'm undecided in fact at my age it's unlikely to affect me one way or the other. What I will say is that in my early teens I'd never heard or come across drug use until a few bands were nabbed and of course became headline media news. It's hard to envisage that they were the first and they obviously weren't but my guess is that it was strictly a rich man's pastime then. So was it he publicity that drew in the rest of society or was it simply a case of word of mouth as people became more mobile and clubs became the place to be?

I think part of the problem is people find it difficult to imagine the result of decriminalisation and therefore end up with an image that is the worst of the current set up at the drug user level and the worst of the current nearest equivalents tobacco and alcohol.

Decriminalising drug use wont eliminate all crime, they'll always be people out there looking to fund their lifestyle through the perceived easy route of crime that's why we still have tobacco and alcohol crime.

If an age limit is set, whatever it is 18, 21 there will always be those underage wanting to 'try' it, again witness tobacco, alcohol and even 'x' rated media. but this is all happening currently with illegal drugs so the only hope there is to educate and minimise.

Some interesting tobacco age limiting results here: http://www.bbc.co.uk...health-11001599

Where we need to look is at the effect on the adult user and here there seems to be strong case for decriminalising it's use in the hope that it brings a more sensible approach to those that will be using drugs whatever the situation.

I guess I'm rambling a bit here but these are the thoughts that are spinning around my head

[FoxyPV]

Decriminalising the user may help but not decriminalising the drug.