Decriminalising drug use, Good or Bad Idea?

[davieG]

Decriminalising the user may help but not decriminalising the drug.

That strikes me as the worst of compromises, because you'd still have all the criminality attached without the means of control whilst being seen to encourage it's use. Besides I'm sure most police activity is aimed at the drug providers rather than the users so it's not really a change albeit making it official policy.

[Bellend Sebastian]

A bit old, but very relevant to the discussion:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/heroin-the-solution-480734.html

Forgive me for getting all 'class warrior' on your asses, but I think one of the biggest barriers to anything sensible being done about this is that there's a perception that this is a problem that only affects the lower echelons of society (and it's certainly a bigger problem for those) which a) stops anyone actually giving it any thought and b) makes people paranoid about doing anything that in their mind might lead to it spreading out of the sink estates. It's just poor people, fuck 'em.

I think that's bollocks anyway. I know heroin addicts from very wealthy families, and I also know that they're not having to travel to the rougher parts of town to score

[Alexikokopops]

LEGALISE DRUGS, SAYS SOME CRAZY PRESIDENT OF THE ROYAL COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS

[FoxyPV]

A bit old, but very relevant to the discussion:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/heroin-the-solution-480734.html

Forgive me for getting all 'class warrior' on your asses, but I think one of the biggest barriers to anything sensible being done about this is that there's a perception that this is a problem that only affects the lower echelons of society (and it's certainly a bigger problem for those) which a) stops anyone actually giving it any thought and b) makes people paranoid about doing anything that in their mind might lead to it spreading out of the sink estates. It's just poor people, **** 'em.

I think that's bollocks anyway. I know heroin addicts from very wealthy families, and I also know that they're not having to travel to the rougher parts of town to score

Middle class users will generally get away with drugs offences whereas those from working class areas won't regardless of how minor the infringements are.

[Edmund]

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.

Don't try and patronisine me.

The difference is I've seen first hand peoples lives destroyed by drugs yet you base your opinions on web links. Go figure. I can assure you I'm streetwise enough to know the real score and don't base my opinions on media headlines like you seem to think anyone that disagrees with you does.

If you actually read my post you'd realise that I had mentioned a workable and realistic solution in the form of giving out heroin in a controlled and environment for free. I'm all for solving the problem but think more has to be done than decriminilising of the drug. I never said anything about a surge in addicts overnight?

I've listed the reasons why the government selling heroin wouldn't work yet you've choosen to ignore it. The problem is you or me don't have the real answer, the people you need to ask are the addicts, the ones who are addicted to the stuff.

How someone like you seems to have the knowledge and the solution for all is simply laughable and baffling and and to top it all off have the cheek to disregard other peoples points of views especially those who've seen mates lives destroyed by drugs.

I'll say it once more, you're living in a dreamworld.

by people who don't have the first clue about drug use and drug culture.

aka Finnegan

[Dr The Singh]

There's no easy solution. Although I like the idea of getting tax money from the sales of tese recreational drugs but the control and especially the availibility to a wider audience is a concern!!!

If the the poooonjab is anything to go by, where drugs of any kind are purchasable and totally ignored by the authorities, then for me, it would be a no!!!!!

[Houdini Logic]

Obviously Sir Ian Gilmore isn't in his mid twenties and when methadrone come on the scene a number of his friends probably didn't go crazy for it. These are your well educated middle of the road type of friends, most of whom previously had never done anything other than smoke a little bit of weed. Sir Ian Gilmore clearly didn't have two friends that ended up in or with visits to hospital. He also probably didn't notice that after it was made illegal noone touched it (though a couple still actively look for it and one has seemed to substitute it with cocaine)

Get in the real world you fooking clown

[Zingari]

I may be getting old . senile and cynical , but i seem to rememember gangs of experts armed with statistics and so called proofs that ;

Increased sex education and freely available contraception would lead to decreased teenage pregnancy.

Relaxing the drinking laws would lead to more civilised drinkinking habits and reduce alcohol abuse .

Banning corporal punishment in schools would lead to better behaved students .

Well I'm still waiting , so I'll probably remain sceptical of the benefits that are supposed to be coming from this

Legalization would decrease price and increase availability. As with most things such as alcohol , tobacco , sex and even food , availability is a leading factor associated with increased use.

Increased availability and therefore use of addictive substances will probably lead to increased addiction.

But I'm no expert , as you may have already guessed, and remain sitting on the fence , but I'm dangling slightly towards Edmund Crouchback's stance

[Dr The Singh]

I may be getting old . senile and cynical , but i seem to rememember gangs of experts armed with statistics and so called proofs that ;

Increased sex education and freely available contraception would lead to decreased teenage pregnancy.

Relaxing the drinking laws would lead to more civilised drinkinking habits and reduce alcohol abuse .

Banning corporal punishment in schools would lead to better behaved students .

Well I'm still waiting , so I'll probably remain sceptical of the benefits that are supposed to be coming from this

Legalization would decrease price and increase availability. As with most things such as alcohol , tobacco , sex and even food , availability is a leading factor associated with increased use.

Increased availability and therefore use of addictive substances will probably lead to increased addiction.

But I'm no expert , as you may have already guessed, and remain sitting on the fence , but I'm dangling slightly towards Edmund Crouchback's stance

Sort of sums my opinion, and again my cock is also dangling towards Edmund, all for the wrong reasons!!!

[Alexikokopops]

Obviously Sir Ian Gilmore isn't in his mid twenties and when methadrone come on the scene a number of his friends probably didn't go crazy for it. These are your well educated middle of the road type of friends, most of whom previously had never done anything other than smoke a little bit of weed. Sir Ian Gilmore clearly didn't have two friends that ended up in or with visits to hospital. He also probably didn't notice that after it was made illegal noone touched it (though a couple still actively look for it and one has seemed to substitute it with cocaine)

Get in the real world you fooking clown

I'm sorry to hear about your friends, but do you honestly think people would suddenly start boshing down the heroin day in day out as soon as it became legal if that was, in fact, the case? And do you think that the current prohibition of drugs is doing a good job at stopping them getting on the street and stopping people getting their hands on them if they want them? I'm talking beyond just methodrone (which from my experience people haven't stopped touching since it became illegal, just that the papers don't care about it now and have found something else to get outraged about).

Sorry if I sound accusatory or anything like that, I don't intend to. I'm just asking questions

[Zingari]

Sort of sums my opinion, and again my cock is also dangling towards Edmund, all for the wrong reasons!!!

hardly a compliment to him

it reminds me of the old Winston Churchill story about a lady who told him his penis was sticking out ,

he replied

" Don't flatter yourself madam, it's only hanging out. ..."

[Houdini Logic]

I'm sorry to hear about your friends, but do you honestly think people would suddenly start boshing down the heroin day in day out as soon as it became legal if that was, in fact, the case? And do you think that the current prohibition of drugs is doing a good job at stopping them getting on the street and stopping people getting their hands on them if they want them? I'm talking beyond just methodrone (which from my experience people haven't stopped touching since it became illegal, just that the papers don't care about it now and have found something else to get outraged about).

Sorry if I sound accusatory or anything like that, I don't intend to. I'm just asking questions

I'm sorry to hear about your friends, but do you honestly think people would suddenly start boshing down the heroin day in day out as soon as it became legal if that was, in fact, the case?

Why does this conversation need to turn back to Heroin? It's not the only drug out there and it's not the only one being talked about in this article. Addiction to recriational drugs like ecstacy and cocaine can be just as if not more physically and mentally damaging and, unlike heroin, they are drugs that are happily comsumed by your every day person. So, to answer your question - do I think drugs like ecstacy and cocaine would be used more if they were illegal? Of course I do, my experience of methadrone reaffirms this. I think you'd be very naive to think otherwise.

And do you think that the current prohibition of drugs is doing a good job at stopping them getting on the street and stopping people getting their hands on them if they want them?

If people try hard then they can always get what they want, but lets keep that to people who try hard and not people who are mildly curious

I'm talking beyond just methodrone (which from my experience people haven't stopped touching since it became illegal, just that the papers don't care about it now and have found something else to get outraged about).

End of last year I would go to my local pub/bar and at least 30% of people were taking methadrone, and that's genuinely a reserved estimate. I'd be hard pushed to find one person if I go out this weekend (though it does seem a number of people have turned to a new legal high 'NRG')

Sorry if I sound accusatory or anything like that, I don't intend to. I'm just asking questions

Not at all - just different opinions

[Finnegan]

Your post comes across as unusually hostile and judgemental given the nature of most of our exchanges, Jehst, I can only assume I've hit some sort of nerve. I certainly wasn't trying to make you out to be some sort of Daily Mail reading moutbreather who believes everything he's written, the whole point of Davies' article and others he's written (being somewhat passionate and also incredibly well researched on the issue) is that contemporary culture's blanket views on drugs go far deeper than simply believing what you read in the papers, we've spawned an entire culture of complete misinformation and misrepresentation of the drug trade.

Anyway, I don't really want to get into petty squabbles with you, but RE:

How someone like you seems to have the knowledge and the solution for all is simply laughable and baffling and and to top it all off have the cheek to disregard other peoples points of views especially those who've seen mates lives destroyed by drugs.

When did I ever say I had the answers? I'm merely pointing out that there are a multitude of immensely credible sources out there that advocate a more considered approach to drug law and the drugs trade but that they sadly get instantly demonized by a tidal wave of panicking society that's been literally wired to see narcotics as chemical devils.

aka Finnegan

And that's just being childish. Are we going to have some ghetto-points-scoring pissing contest to see who has the most "druggie mates?" Wow, you'd probably have me by a fair few points. Get over yourself.

You've probably come wading in here because you know I'll give you some heated debate and you're in the mood - have you actually read anything Bellend or James or Alex have contributed, being much on the same lines as what I've said? Or read any of the articles anybody's linked? So somebody's writing for the Guardian they're thus some sort of snob rich boy who couldn't possibly have your oh-so-streetwise ghetto lifestyle prior to picking up a type writer? And couldn't possibly have done their research whilst knowing ample addicts or dealers or sufferers of the trade?

Mudslinging's not normally your style - leave it to the knuckledraggers.

[Alexikokopops]

You've probably come wading in here because you know I'll give you some heated debate and you're in the mood - have you actually read anything Bellend or James or Alex have contributed...

As much as I hate James and his obnoxiously tall stature, those two have definitely contributed some more intelligent posts than me! I'm just slinging questions around with reckless abandon. Now, leave me be to smoke my crack pipe.

[Finnegan]

As much as I hate James and his obnoxiously tall stature, those two have definitely contributed some more intelligent posts than me! I'm just slinging questions around with reckless abandon. Now, leave me be to smoke my crack pipe.

You're a posh, white nerd - you're not allowed drugs, sorry.

[Edmund]

Your post comes across as unusually hostile and judgmental given the nature of most of our exchanges, Jehst, I can only assume I've hit some sort of nerve.

I'm sorry if I came across that way but I just found your views very naive. I don't want to go into personal details but an old friend of mine from school has never been the same and it's soul destroying to see it happen in front of your eyes.

When did I ever say I had the answers? I'm merely pointing out that there are a multitude of immensely credible sources out there that advocate a more considered approach to drug law and the drugs trade but that they sadly get instantly demonized by a tidal wave of panicking society that's been literally wired to see narcotics as chemical devils.

I agree with you in a way but what ever way you look at it, drugs do more harm than good. And don't be pedantic and bring up medical life saving drugs You know what I mean.

And that's just being childish. Are we going to have some ghetto-points-scoring pissing contest to see who has the most "druggie mates?" Wow, you'd probably have me by a fair few points. Get over yourself.

It seems I've hit a nerve with you here

Seriously I didn't mean it in that way. The point I'm making is most people with the "answers" don't actually have first hand experience in the subject no matter how much research they've done.

You've probably come wading in here because you know I'll give you some heated debate and you're in the mood - have you actually read anything Bellend or James or Alex have contributed, being much on the same lines as what I've said?

Debate yes. Afterall this is a forum. On purpose no. I just genuinely disagree with your views. I've read all the views on here and to be honest I was shocked with James comments. I know he was an ex raver like me and he can't honestly say that legalising ecstasy is a smart move? I've seen people collapse, being stretchered out of raves not even mentioning the amount of times I've had many a night ruined looking after mates who were close to od'ing. I'm sorry if you think I'm targeting you, that's simply not the case.

Anyway i stand by what I've said. We should be concentrating on getting people off the hard class A's not encouraging them. I understand that some people will never be free of their addictions so like I've said numerous times give it to them for free and in a safe environment. It will then cut out the majority of theft. Ask any copper and they'll tell you the most amount of theft is caused by drug addicts thus lowering prices and making it legal will do squat

A police officer even came out and said that it would be a cheaper option for the nation to give these drugs out for free as it would save millions on police costs and theft reductions. All theft is payed by you and me at the end of the day through inflated prices. Of course he was shot down by the public as like you say some people only see it in black and white which is probably the only point in which we both agree on.

[AoWW]

I wandered into this thread full of preconceptions and I must admit my initial, naive and knee-jerk reaction was 'no, no way.. bad idea'. But, having read the informed posts Bellend, James, Steven and Finners have made - and the links they've posted, plus Transform's excellent leaflet - I now really see that there are many positives to be gained from decriminalising drugs. I don't believe there would be a 'drugs free-for-all' and that everyone would suddenly rush out and get stoned as a result of decriminalising drugs. Instead I can see how it would offer a more compassionate approach and by reducing the 'demonisation' of drugs (especially by some factions of the media) allow for more balanced education on their use, misuse, affects and risks.

Just my tuppence worth...

[MattyFromLE]

I just honestly think there is no way round it. Criminalise it = its more desirable/more people will break more laws to get it. Legalise it = it'll cause uproar and people will overdose and the NHS will have to bail them out. Its like lots of things, the subject is way too far gone to take a u-turn now. I don't believe there is a happy middle point where both arguments can be settled to be honest

[BoneDog]

The only good thing to do about heroin would be to destroy the trade and not protect it. The heroin trade is an elitist trade and always has been. Poppy fields are protected and not destroyed. The opium trade has massively increased in Afghanistan since the allies went there, it has not decreased.

You need massive poppy fields to support the trade and the powers that be know exactly where they are due to satellites and spy planes. If people can't see that this business is highly protected then you need to up your knowledge base. IMO

[Alexikokopops]

Not at all - just different opinions

To be honest, I'm not sure what my opinion is on the matter. I do, however, strongly feel that addicts need help rather than being locked up as a criminal.

[Alexikokopops]

You're a posh, white nerd - you're not allowed drugs, sorry.

I'll take the "white nerd", but I'll only take posh if it's the bumbling idiot kind of posh that Boris does so well. He is my leader, after all.

[FoxyPV]

The drug that is causing the most damage in my area is diazepam. It's legal and incredibly addictive and dirt cheap.

On another note It's cheaper now to take drugs that it is to drink as Es are being sold for 75p a pop.

[Finnegan]

But do you not think that incidents like ecstasy overdoses could be confronted by proper drugs education? I felt a hell of a lot safer experimenting with the things I took in uni knowing that I was surrounded by people who, quite simply, knew what they were doing. Two of the biggest problems surrounding drug use in that context are ignorance of the substance and ignorance of the source.

Both of which could be cut out with a more regulated narcotics trade by treating drugs, not as some sort of silly, medieval evil but as something to intelligent educate younger generations about. The classic Lea Betts situation was entirely avoidable if the girl just knew what she was doing.

As a big "former raver" I doubt not that you've had many, many, many nights on drugs and not even batted an eyelid. Countless people safely use drugs on a daily, monthly, yearly basis and we never hear about them dying. Yes, there are some health risks, but there are with plenty of the things we enjoy. Yet again you end up brought back to statistics about alcohol and yet again nobody will ever ACTUALLY explain to you why, exactly, it isn't completely hypocritical that alcohol is legal and, for example, weed isn't?

[Edmund]

The drug that is causing the most damage in my area is diazepam. It's legal and incredibly addictive and dirt cheap.

On another note It's cheaper now to take drugs that it is to drink as Es are being sold for 75p a pop.

There's also that crystal meth which is big in the U.S which is supposedly more addictive than anything on the market. I certainly wouldn't want to see that shit being legalised.

But do you not think that incidents like ecstasy overdoses could be confronted by proper drugs education? I felt a hell of a lot safer experimenting with the things I took in uni knowing that I was surrounded by people who, quite simply, knew what they were doing.

Drop the textbook for one moment Finners.

Drugs education?

Step one. Obtain pill from dealer.

Step two. Place in mouth.

Step three. Swallow with water.

Step four. Wait 15-60 minutes for effects to take place.

[Fox You Forest]

I'll take the "white nerd", but I'll only take posh if it's the bumbling idiot kind of posh that Boris does so well. He is my leader, after all.