Decriminalising drug use, Good or Bad Idea?

[Zingari]

By george, someone with an ounce of logic

i've just edited

[Steven]

I can't really see why using the argument that alcohol abuse kills more than drug abuse is an argument for legalising drugs .

The reason that alcohol kills so many is that it is legal and easily attainable ,

Giving drugs the same availability and legality would surely increase the risk of drug related deaths .

EDIT ;

sorry, just repeated what EC said

Then alcohol should be illegal.

[Zingari]

Then alcohol should be illegal.

then you agree that making stuff illegal has a beneficial result

[davieG]

Not sure this adds to the debate it seems to me it could be used to prove both sides of the argument

From today's Merc

Party drug 'miaow miaow' killed kind and caring Kathleen, inquest told

Kathleen MackenThe family of a "charismatic and caring" girl who died after taking a party drug say they will never forgive the two men who gave it to her.

Kathleen Macken, of Eyres Monsell, Leicester, died in October after taking the then legal high mephedrone – also known as miaow miaow or MCATT– while drinking with two men.

Hours later, she collapsed in a taxi on her way home.

She was put on a life-support machine in hospital, but died the following day after suffering a cardiac arrest.

Kathleen was the first person in Britain to die from taking the drug.

At an inquest at Leicester Town Hall yesterday, ambulance technician Karen Waddington told how Kathleen was "agitated" in the ambulance.

She said: "She rolled over and said 'Oh my God! What have you put in my drink?'."

Her family believe the men she was with – Thomas Calvert and Oliver Gent, members of a criminal gang now serving prison sentences for burglary – should face prosecution for giving her the drug, on the morning of October 27, 2009.

In a statement after the inquest, Kathleen's family said she had "never been involved in the taking of illicit drugs".

They said: "We can never forgive those who have supplied her with a drug on that day.

"It is hard to ignore the words Kathleen said in the ambulance and it has always been the family's firm wish that a criminal prosecution could have followed.

"What we have heard today has not altered our view and we hope the police could look again at the circumstances."

They described Kathleen, who died weeks before her 21st birthday, as a "warm, kind, generous and popular girl."

Calvert and Gent, who were brought from prison, were asked to recount the events leading up to Kathleen's death.

Calvert said he had arranged to meet Kathleen on October 26 and collected her, with Gent, from her home at about 3pm.

He said they spent nearly 24 hours drinking before taking the drug.

Calvert said Kathleen asked to try it after she saw him and Gent taking it and he said he told her: "Help yourself."

About two hours later he said her demeanour changed from "lively" to "edgy" and he ordered her a taxi.

Paul Trotter, representing Kathleen's family, asked Calvert and Gent individually if more mephedrone could have been put in Kathleen's drink by them or anyone else. Both men said no.

Toxicologist Dr Webster Madira told the inquest that if taken orally mephedrone's effects started to be seen within 10 to 40 minutes and could last up to six hours.

Gent said he thought Kathleen seemed "a bit high" after she took the drug and that neither he nor Calvert had forced the drug on her.

Gent and Calvert were members of a gang convicted of carrying out 17 burglaries around the UK between March and November 2008.

They were jailed for their part in those offences nine days after Kathleen died.

A post-mortem examination by forensic pathologist Dr Amanda Jeffrey concluded Kathleen died from a cardiac arrest suffered as a result of taking the drug.

No traces of alcohol or prescription or illegal drugs were found during tests.

After the post-mortem examination, doctors checked for mephedrone after it was mentioned she was talking about it in the ambulance.

Dr Jeffrey said they had to contact doctors in Sweden, who had experience of the only death which had been linked directly to mephedrone.

Recording a verdict of death by misadventure, coroner Donald Coutts-Wood said: "From the evidence I have heard it indicates to me Miss Macken voluntarily took that drug, though not with the intention of anything more than trying it."

Mephedrone was banned under the Misuse of Drugs Act in April.

Before leaving the court both Calvert and Gent offered their apologies to Kathleen's family.

Calvert said: "I am very sorry for your loss.

"I know you don't want to hear that from me, but I am."

[Zingari]

Drug addict benefit withdrawal considered

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11033139

i've got a feeling this sort of measure would be more effective

[Bellend Sebastian]

I can't really see why using the argument that alcohol abuse kills more than drug abuse is an argument for legalising drugs .

The reason that alcohol kills so many is that it is legal and easily attainable ,

Giving drugs the same availability and legality would surely increase the risk of drug related deaths .

I might have missed something that's been said in the thread but the main thrust of drug reform isn't about making any drugs more available, it's about controlling their supply and these aren't the same thing. I get the sense that a lot of folk are equating de-criminalising with increasing supply and that isn't what pro-reformers want, as far as I can tell.

Forgive me for boring everyone senseless by repeating myself, it's not really an issue of whether the substances are dangerous or not (I'm not going to make that call, and I don't think anyone who isn't an appropriately qualified professional with the correct data in front of them should make that call either) and the extent of the dangers associated with each type are pretty well known. It's an issue of whether the current system of enforcement (the authorities) and supply (criminals) exacerbates the harm that they cause, and like it or not there's a growing body of opinion in the medical profession and law enforcement agencies that it does

[Bellend Sebastian]

Drug addict benefit withdrawal considered

ttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11033139

i've got a feeling this sort of measure would be more effective

I'm not usually a betting man but I think I'd be willing to bet my house on the effect that this would have. Practically f-all effect on hard drug consumption and massive increases in crime

[Zingari]

I might have missed something that's been said in the thread but the main thrust of drug reform isn't about making any drugs more available, it's about controlling their supply and these aren't the same thing. I get the sense that a lot of folk are equating de-criminalising with increasing supply and that isn't what pro-reformers want, as far as I can tell.

Forgive me for boring everyone senseless by repeating myself, it's not really an issue of whether the substances are dangerous or not (I'm not going to make that call, and I don't think anyone who isn't an appropriately qualified professional with the correct data in front of them should make that call either) and the extent of the dangers associated with each type are pretty well known. It's an issue of whether the current system of enforcement (the authorities) and supply (criminals) exacerbates the harm that they cause, and like it or not there's a growing body of opinion in the medical profession and law enforcement agencies that it does

Surely by legalising them , all the control disappears ( not that there is very much control now )

Its like saying we have greater control on alcohol consumption because it's legal. and we obviously don't

Anyway i am not really arguing against you because you and others are indeed making some excellent points ,

it's just that i'm really not convinced it's a good way forward and that decriminalisation would be like letting the genie out of the bottle ( for want of a better phrase )and a return to illegality ( if the decision turned out to be a poor one ) would be much harder

, But then i'm not really experienced with dealing with drug issues as i've led a sheltered life away from their terrible effects

[James.]

I can't really see why using the argument that alcohol abuse kills more than drug abuse is an argument for legalising drugs .

The reason that alcohol kills so many is that it is legal and easily attainable ,

Giving drugs the same availability and legality would surely increase the risk of drug related deaths .

Very simplistic argument. No one in this thread has said that drugs should be sold in Tesco and corner shops.

=======

I'd written that before reading the rest of the replies.

In summary I find myself nodding violently whenever I read Bellend's posts - probably the most informed poster in the debate. If anything this thread has reinforced what I already thought however that's only been possible due to valid contributions from the likes of EC, Zingers and Houdini on the other side of the fence.

It's now kind of getting to the stage where points get repeated so I'll probably bow out. One last thing I will say is that as a result of this I'm going to actively follow Transform and support them however I can. It's a fascinating subject and one that, as BS said at the start of the thread, is one of the most important this country faces.

[Zingari]

Very simplistic argument. No one in this thread has said that drugs should be sold in Tesco and corner shops.

=======

I'd written that before reading the rest of the replies.

In summary I find myself nodding violently whenever I read Bellend's posts - probably the most informed poster in the debate. If anything this thread has reinforced what I already thought however that's only been possible due to valid contributions from the likes of EC, Zingers and Houdini on the other side of the fence.

It's now kind of getting to the stage where points get repeated so I'll probably bow out. One last thing I will say is that as a result of this I'm going to actively follow Transform and support them however I can. It's a fascinating subject and one that, as BS said at the start of the thread, is one of the most important this country faces.

Haven't you noticed ? it's what i always rail against

We now live in a world where it's fashionable , (nay even compulsory) , to over complicate things until no one can see the wood for the trees .

It gives the experts something to do while we argue among ourselves which "expert view" is the right one and which is more expert than the other

ps i am only joking

[dandannieldanok]

Very simplistic argument. No one in this thread has said that drugs should be sold in Tesco and corner shops.

So they're not going to be in supermarkets, nor corner shops. Sounds as though they'd be just as difficult to get hold of if made legal than they are currently. Saying they wouldn't be available in tescos or corner shops is a clear admittance that drugs are not fit for wholesale public consumption.

[Zingari]

I'm not usually a betting man but I think I'd be willing to bet my house on the effect that this would have. Practically f-all effect on hard drug consumption and massive increases in crime

good , it's bad for you .

it's becomes addictive , just like a ............err drug

[sw_fox]

Surely by legalising them , all the control disappears ( not that there is very much control now )

Its like saying we have greater control on alcohol consumption because it's legal. and we obviously don't

Anyway i am not really arguing against you because you and others are indeed making some excellent points ,

it's just that i'm really not convinced it's a good way forward and that decriminalisation would be like letting the genie out of the bottle ( for want of a better phrase )and a return to illegality ( if the decision turned out to be a poor one ) would be much harder

, But then i'm not really experienced with dealing with drug issues as i've led a sheltered life away from their terrible effects

For one you can control WHO can take it- for instance having a requirement that you have to be a resident of this country to gain access to legal drugs (to prevent drug tourism a la amsterdam)

For another you can control the age of people who are able to purchase the drugs.

For another you can control whether people are in the right mental state to be buying the drugs (e.g. if they are off their bollocks on something then don't give them anymore)

For another you can control what purity the drugs are(the majority of deaths from IV drug use are from the harms of it being illegal- it being cut with stuff, dirty needles, hepatitis, collapsed veins, if the purity is known MANY less overdoses will occur).

Finally if drug use can be supervised by medical professionals then there can be intervention to prevent the risky behaviour I have just described.

[Phube]

The older I get the more I believe ALL drug should be de-criminalised or rather regulated.

It's win-win.

No more drug dealers, less crime, safe drugs, high tax revenues, give money to Afghanistan to grow the opium...

[Steven]

The older I get the more I believe ALL drug should be de-criminalised or rather regulated.

It's win-win.

No more drug dealers, less crime, safe drugs, high tax revenues, give money to Afghanistan to grow the opium...

[James.]

So they're not going to be in supermarkets, nor corner shops. Sounds as though they'd be just as difficult to get hold of if made legal than they are currently. Saying they wouldn't be available in tescos or corner shops is a clear admittance that drugs are not fit for wholesale public consumption.

Eh? You should read this thread more carefully. No one on either side of the argument has said that drugs should be available for "wholesale public consumption". That's no reason not to reform drug laws.

[Webbo]

If anyone thinks that by legalising drugs all the drug dealers are just going to go away and retrain as accountants or something they're being a bit naive.

If drugs become legal for over 16/18s they'll sell them to under 16/18s, if drugs are taxed they'll sell untaxed drugs. They're making too much money just to shrug their shoulders and give up.

[dandannieldanok]

For one you can control WHO can take it- for instance having a requirement that you have to be a resident of this country to gain access to legal drugs (to prevent drug tourism a la amsterdam)

For another you can control the age of people who are able to purchase the drugs.

For another you can control whether people are in the right mental state to be buying the drugs (e.g. if they are off their bollocks on something then don't give them anymore)

For another you can control what purity the drugs are(the majority of deaths from IV drug use are from the harms of it being illegal- it being cut with stuff, dirty needles, hepatitis, collapsed veins, if the purity is known MANY less overdoses will occur).

Finally if drug use can be supervised by medical professionals then there can be intervention to prevent the risky behaviour I have just described.

Where are you going to get the money and resources to carry all that out?..the country is penniless. And with all those controls, you're massively restricting who can buy them, and therefore you're still going to be left with the situation as it is, where people are having to go and buy illegally because they can't get them legally. You've solved nothing doing it like that, and the issue about illegal supply seems to be the only valid argument those who think drugs should be legalised have. The issue is though, you couldn't do it any other way because drugs are too dangerous to be dealt out to the public without control. Seems like no-one is willing to admit that though.

Eh? You should read this thread more carefully. No one on either side of the argument has said that drugs should be available for "wholesale public consumption". That's no reason not to reform drug laws.

But no-one has come up with any kind of plan as to where you would be able to get these drugs from apart from one flimsy idea of making them available from the doctors on prescription which is totally infeasible. It's all very well all these posters coming up with reasons why drugs are not that bad and should be made legal, but I've yet to see anyone come up with a practical plan for implementing legality. If you aren't making them available for wholesale public consumption then that is an admittance that they're aren't at all safe, there's no way of wriggling away from the crux of the issue.

[Zingari]

I still remain sitting on the fence about this and quite agree that the argument for decriminalisation does on the surface sound very seductive , and drugs distributed in a controlled manner does seem a better option than criminal underground .

The Portuguese decision 10 years ago seems to have had a beneficial effect but conversely 30 years on, and the Dutch are not quite so convinced that freely available drugs are so desirable .

But it's still the nuts and bolts of how the distribution will be controlled that remains slightly puzzling.

We have been told that it's not something to buy off the shelf at Tesco , but where will they be sold ?

Presumably at outlets that are staffed by doctors / medics etc who will decide who and what individuals can buy . Otherwise they may as well be on general sale in supermarkets .

This opens up the question of who would be responsible for overdoses . onset of mental or physical illnesses or even any deaths that may occur, Will there be massive law suits coming out of this ?

How would the distributor decide on who should get the drugs ?

Would it be only users who are already drug dependant ? If so then these users would have become dependant on drugs obtained illegally previously .

Would the distributor be giving stuff to first time users ? How many medics would be inclined to dish out drugs to someone who was just curious about the effects ? So this would lead the first time user back onto the streets?

After reading posts on here and on the BBC , I do think the issue of decriminalisation should seriously be considered now though .

[Phube]

If anyone thinks that by legalising drugs all the drug dealers are just going to go away and retrain as accountants or something they're being a bit naive.

If drugs become legal for over 16/18s they'll sell them to under 16/18s, if drugs are taxed they'll sell untaxed drugs. They're making too much money just to shrug their shoulders and give up.

Where will they purchase these untaxed drugs?? Could they under-cut the government!? They make money because it's illegal and very hard to get into the country so Mr. Big buys it 'raw' for 'X' at a decent price. He cut it with Ajax/rat poison etc. and sells to Mr Medium for 4x 'X' Mr. Medium cuts it again with talc etc. and sells to Mr. Small for 10x 'X' who then cuts it with bath salts etc. sells it to Mr. Scum on the street for +20x 'X'. The Government would sell it for 'X' + VAT + Drug Tax... <<<< £Now!

The last time I checked people weren't having 'turf wars' over untaxed cigarettes!

In every country where drugs have been 'legalised' the drug abuse rate has stalled or even fallen (Portugal and Switzerland).

Final point.

For any argument where you mention drug harm/addictivness put in the word tobacco or alcohol... it's all the same!

[James.]

But no-one has come up with any kind of plan as to where you would be able to get these drugs from apart from one flimsy idea of making them available from the doctors on prescription which is totally infeasible. It's all very well all these posters coming up with reasons why drugs are not that bad and should be made legal, but I've yet to see anyone come up with a practical plan for implementing legality. If you aren't making them available for wholesale public consumption then that is an admittance that they're aren't at all safe, there's no way of wriggling away from the crux of the issue.

Unfortunately I have a full time job and a host of other responsibilities so don't really have time to provide a detailed plan of how to implement decriminalisation of drugs. I don't think anyone has intimated that it would not be a highly complex process with its own problems along the way.

Fortunately though Transform (who I may add were mentioned in one of the first posts in this thread) have produced a detailed blueprint on drug regulation. I must admit I haven't read it yet but I will do and I suggest you do the same.

Drugs Blueprint

That's me done.

[Edmund]

The last time I checked people weren't having 'turf wars' over untaxed cigarettes!

Actually illegal cigarettes is big business for Eastern European gangs especially in London

[Bellend Sebastian]

Tired of contributing to the debate yourself? Read someone else doing it instead:

http://www.speakerscornertrust.org/forum/forum-for-debate/

Mirrors the arguments put forward on here to an extent

[phillip j fry]

i tend to agree with ec and webbo summed up my position on why decriminalisation wouldnt work, but the mass production of synthetic drugs in east asia is going to make our countrys policy on drugs untenable.we are going to be swamped with cheap and powerfull narcotics in no time and no one has the answers on either side of the argument.god knows where this will leave us in 10 years time.

[davieG]

From the Merc

A drug user died after taking heroin contaminated with anthrax, health officials revealed this morning.

Thomas Forbes, 29, of Loughborough is the fourth heroin user in England to die after taking a dose of the drug which had somehow become contaminated with anthrax.

Mr Forbes, who is also known as Tom, died in hospital last Thursday.

Tests later detected the presence of anthrax in his system.

The first case in England was reported in London in February this year. However anthrax-contaminated heroin has been blamed for 13 deaths in Scotland since last December.

The Health Protection Agency (HPA) and NHS Leicestershire County and Rutland today urged all heroin users to stop taking the drug and to seek treatment immediately.

They have also said there is no risk to people who do not take the drug.

Tim Davies, deputy director of public health at NHS Leicestershire County and Rutland, said: "While public health investigations are ongoing, it must be assumed that all heroin in Leicestershire carries the risk of anthrax contamination.

"I urge all heroin users to be extremely alert to the risks and to seek urgent medical advice if they experience signs of infection such as redness or excessive swelling at or near an injection site, or other symptoms of general illness such a high temperature, chills or a severe headache or breathing difficulties, as early antibiotic treatment can be lifesaving.

Leicestershire police has launched an investigation into the death.

Four Loughborough men, aged 24, 31, 35 and 37, have been arrested in connection with the incident but have been released on police bail pending further inquiries.