Home Drink & Drugs
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Drug legalisation

**helen****helen** Deactivated Posts: 9,235 Supreme Poster
:wave: one of TheSite.org's journos, Holly, managed to get a pretty hefty interview about drug legalisation with James Brokenshire MP, Minister for Crime Prevention.

We couldn't use it all for an article, but equally wanted you guys to have a chance to read it all and perhaps discuss some of the issues. Here it is:

1) What are the main reasons for the continued criminalisation of drugs?

Drugs like cannabis, cocaine, heroin, ecstasy and cannabis are illegal in almost every country in the world because they are dangerous, both to those who take them and the wider community. As a Home Office minister it is my responsibility to help protect the public from the very damaging health and social harms we know drugs cause.

The majority of people don’t take drugs - decriminalisation would send out the wrong message, especially to our young people, that it was somehow ‘alright’ to take drugs. Our aim is to support people – especially young people – to steer clear from drugs, not to encourage people to take them.

Decriminalisation fails to recognise the misery, cost and lost opportunities that dependence causes individuals, their families and the wider community.

We believe our approach is the best one, one of strict control and prohibition alongside education for young people and support for those caught in the cycle of drug misuse and dependency to become drug free.

Our priorities are clear; we want to reduce drug use, crack down on drug related crime and disorder and help dependent users come off drugs for good.

2) Thousands of people die every year due to smoking and alcohol. Why are these ‘drugs’ legal and other drugs not?

We acknowledge that alcohol and tobacco account for more health problems and deaths than illicit drugs, as well as being a cause of crime and disorder. This is why we intervene in many ways to prevent and minimise these harms, including by restricting sales through our licensing laws. .

However, the way these substances are regulated is embedded in historical tradition and a tolerance of responsible consumption. The licensing controls on these substances remain acceptable to the vast majority of people. The way we regulate alcohol and tobacco therefore remains distinct from the way we control illicit drugs.


3) Is the criminalisation of drugs not putting the health of users at risk?

If people are going to take drugs anyway, surely it makes sense to legalise them to ensure quality control and safety? This way issues such as purity and dosages can be properly managed rather than leaving users at the hands of criminals?

Firstly, we must remember that the vast majority of people do not use drugs. It is the Government’s ambition, as set out in our Drug Strategy (published at www.homeoffice.gov.uk) to stop people taking drugs in the first place – not to encourage their use – and to support dependent users into recovery – not to maintain their addiction. If such drugs were to become legally available they would become easier to access and levels of supply and use would rise significantly along with the associated harms and cost to individuals and society.

Drugs are harmful to health, whatever their purity and dosage; this is why the Government takes legislative steps to reduce their availability in order to protect public health. Those who seek to use them already place themselves in harm’s way. It is also naïve to think that a system of regulated supply would eliminate the crimes committed by organised career criminals. Such criminals would simply seek new sources of illicit revenue through crime, not least in illicit drug supply and trafficking amid the increase in demand that would follow decriminalisation.

Secondly, the UK’s drug laws provide the opportunity for the criminal justice system to intervene with problem drug users, interventions like the treatment of their addiction alongside support to address things like mental health and family issues. These can have a positive effect in reducing drug misuse and related crime and make a real difference for the quality of life of these individuals and their communities. Our Drug Strategy focuses on helping those who want to become drug-free to regain meaningful lives within their families and the community.

4) If people insist on using drugs regardless of the law, why allow the industry to be controlled by criminals?

The illegal drugs trade is responsible for guerrilla warfare, human trafficking, murders, and funds a countless amount of human rights atrocities and further criminal activity. Surely, if drugs were legalised, these incidences and black trade wouldn’t be able to flourish?

This view fails to recognise the complexity of the issue. It neither addresses the risk factors which lead individuals to misuse drugs, nor the misery, cost and lost opportunities that dependence causes individuals, their families and the wider community. Decriminalisation would send the wrong public health message to the majority of people, who do not take drugs, with the potential risk of increased drug misuse and greater harm to society.

Decriminalisation would not eliminate the crime that is committed by organised career criminals involved in illicit drug supply – as the counterfeit and trafficking of alcohol and tobacco demonstrate. Criminals would simply find new ways to raise revenue from illicit drug supply.

We want to empower the public, and young people in particular, to make the right decisions. It is not necessarily the prohibition of drugs that creates these criminal activities and social harms, it is the demand for illicit drugs. This is why our Drug Strategy focuses on prevention and education to reduce demand and on reducing supply both here and from abroad.

We are not just talking about the UK’s demand for illicit drugs but the bloodshed, corruption and instability the drugs trade causes across the world. We have a shared international responsibility as individuals and as a country to prevent these harms.

5) Does criminalising illegal drugs not also criminalise the thousands of young people who regularly take them and don’t commit any further criminal activity? Surely making them illegal also just makes them more alluring?

Young people’s drug use is a distinct problem. The majority of young people do not use drugs and most of those that do, are not dependent. But drug and alcohol misuse can have a major impact on young people’s education, their health, their families and their long-term chances in life. All young people need to be well educated on the harms caused by drugs and alcohol so they have the confidence to choose not to use them.

Last December, the Government published the new Drug Strategy – ‘Reducing Demand, Restricting Supply, Building Recovery’. The strategy clearly sets out the Government ambition to prevent people from starting to use drugs and the need to make sure that young people are aware of the consequences of drug use and are able to make healthy and responsible choices concerning drugs. Through effective education and through providing credible, accurate advice we must make sure that they are fully aware of the harm that drugs can cause and, like most young people, decide not to use them at all.

Our message is clear: no individual should take any drug controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. If a person is caught in possession, supplying or producing a controlled drug, they are committing an offence. The FRANK website (www.talktofrank.com) informs the public, in particularly, young people of the dangers that drugs cause as well as support to parents of those children who are misusing drugs.

6) The war on drugs doesn’t seem to be working and it costs the UK billions of pounds. Isn’t it common sense to a) stop fighting? b) Generate income from drugs using taxation?

Our view is that the UK’s drugs policy has not failed. For the past four decades our drugs laws have served us well, limiting the demand and supply of all drugs and reducing the harms of drugs on dependent users and society.

A regulated market for drugs through controlled outlets (e.g. licensed pharmacies) would provide the opportunity for tax revenue. However, establishing the level of taxation would be difficult. Setting the price too high would open the door for the illegal markets, while setting it too low could feed that same market. Regulation also carries its own administrative and enforcement costs which would be substantial.

In addition to these costs, a system of this kind would require more resources from health services and the criminal justice system to manage wider prescription and addiction treatment costs – including health harms to users and monitoring of activities around production, demand and supply. Such a system of regulated supply would simply fuel demand, and in turn fuel illicit supply and trafficking at ever greater costs to individuals, their families and society.

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I agree with alot of the points that have been made in the interview, eg that the issue of drug legalisation and illegalisation is very complicated but I disagree with that matter on Cannabis! I've smoked it a fair amount and I will admit that it does have its dangers, but in my opinion, these are on par with cigarettes and Alchol!

    As Howard Marks has put his stance on drugs, (I can't remember the exact quote) he believes that until there is a drug that gives someone the urge to maim, kill, rape and in general hurt other people all drugs should be legal (I personally only feel cannabis) and the only drug that comes close to creating this lust is alcohol and yet this is legal (I think that makes sense)
  • SkiveSkive Posts: 15,282 Skive's The Limit
    The first drug that should be decriminalised is heroin. No doubt about it.
    Far from protecting people, the law actually does far more harm.
    Weekender Offender 
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I agree with the part about the law, it turns normal people into criminals because they take certain drugs! Not the other way round as the media seems to portray it. If caught with drugs for personal use then, depending on which drug, it turns the person into a suposed monster who obviously robs grannies to pay for their next fix
    I think the law defintly needs to change
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    mmmkay.gif
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think when people look at cannabis and alcohol, even though the former is still illegal, a lot of people use them both, certain times in abusive extremes, as a aid of socializing. The problem is people see the stigma of cannabis more because its already drilled into the anti-drugs campaign as a dangerous drug. But not so much in terms of alcohol because its legal, and since the usual reasons for making drugs illegal is the "harmfulness" people assume alcohol must be relatively safe because its still legal - the government must do the right thing because they're a government, if its unsafe surely it would be illegal, right? (In terms of any drug, especially alcohol, I hate people who abuse them - and glorify [equally in agreeing or portraying] their abuse. Example in alcohol would be "Oh I got so smashed last night, can't remember a thing, I'm so sick. Just want to sleep. Boss night!"

    I don't agree with this guy that much, but we can all agree its a hard subject and its hard to make most drugs legal - because you will get those dickheads who will abuse the drug(s) because its legal.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    JavaKrypt wrote: »
    I don't agree with this guy that much, but we can all agree its a hard subject and its hard to make most drugs legal - because you will get those dickheads who will abuse the drug(s) because its legal.

    But if they were legal and you could go into a shop and buy them, (like you can alcohol and cigarettes) wouldn't that reduce the risk of having drugs with all kinds of unwanted crap in them?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yes, but that wouldn't change the actions of those who would abuse substances?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Melian wrote: »
    But if they were legal and you could go into a shop and buy them, (like you can alcohol and cigarettes) wouldn't that reduce the risk of having drugs with all kinds of unwanted crap in them?

    Yes it would, if certain drugs were legalised then it would allow them to have near 99.8% purity or most powders. Although i could only ever see the drugs with addictive qualities ever being legalised and controlled, such things like LSD, would never be legalised again.
    To be fair though, in my time doing 'illicit' drugs (i love how they put that...) You do find good dealers and bad dealer, some do nice stuff, some don't. It's not hard to find pure-ish drugs and normally the more you pay, the better the stuff is.
    I can only imagine that if they legalised certain drugs, like cocaine, how would they price it, £40 on the gram? Or £10 on the gram, and at what strength, cos if pure coke was at £10, i'd certainly take up a habbit.

    Prohibition on drugs is causing more of a problem, than not prohibiting drugs, it's just it's far to late to change things, or change things slowly.

    Oh one other thing, it says that "Not many young people" do drugs, I live in plymouth, i'm 17, and i know over 1,200 people here by name aged 13-19. I can probably take a good guess that, atleast half of them do drugs on a daily basis, a quarter take drugs regularly and the rest don't do drugs that often, but i probably know about 5 people, who don't do drugs, or have never tried them, it's not like i only socialise with people who do drugs, it's just the youth of today.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's a shame that the Government still peddle FRANK as a honest and reliable source of information. Any credibility they might have had went out of the window when they did those ridiculous adverts about cannabis. And that's before we talk about the information on their website that isn't just wrong, it is dangerously wrong.

    As for legalising drugs, I'm honestly not sure where I stand. I think legalising heroin, on prescription only, would do a lot of good for society. Methadone isn't any better than heroin and prescription heroin would at least take brown off the streets and take the profit out of dealing it. On a far more cynical level, it may well cut crime too, as addicts no longer have to steal for their fix.

    As for other drugs, like coke or E, I think things are a little more complicated. I think that legalising it protects users and takes the profit out of the illegal market, but there are two major problems with that. If taxation is high on these drugs then you'll still have a black market, as we do with alcohol and tobacco, which would still mean that the criminal gangs are making money on it; taxation on these drugs would inevitably be very high. And also I think that legalising drugs would be taken as a 'stamp of approval' by a lot of people, people who would try the drugs if they were legal. I don't think that's desirable at all.

    I don't know if drug consumption's different now, but I can't really think of many friends who HAVE regularly done drugs and I'm not exactly ancient. Sure, we've all meddled with a bit of cannabis, but nothing really more than that.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fuuubar wrote: »
    Oh one other thing, it says that "Not many young people" do drugs, I live in plymouth, i'm 17, and i know over 1,200 people here by name aged 13-19. I can probably take a good guess that, atleast half of them do drugs on a daily basis, a quarter take drugs regularly and the rest don't do drugs that often, but i probably know about 5 people, who don't do drugs, or have never tried them, it's not like i only socialise with people who do drugs, it's just the youth of today.

    Whereas I live in Plymouth and don't know anyone as such who does drugs. A few friends have done drugs once; but aren't people who regularly do them.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    How old are you though?
    And i've met most of these people through different schools and colleges, like Ridgeway, Heles, Lipson, Eggbuckland, Plymstock, City College Plymouth, Princess Trust... Just my opinion on what i've seen :)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm 22.
  • SkiveSkive Posts: 15,282 Skive's The Limit
    Fuuubar wrote: »
    It's not hard to find pure-ish drugs

    If your talkiing about cocaine it is. On the street the average purity is less than a 30%. Even with the coke seized coming into the country, the average is less than 70%

    If you've ever washed up, it makes you realise how much cocaine in this country is a rip off. That's why I don't do coke and why I have to plaugh when people who do take it, rip into me for smoking a couple of pipes in the past.
    Weekender Offender 
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Protesting too much

    The thing that irks me most about this interview is that Mr Brokenshire keeps repeating that the 'majority of people don't take drugs'. This is not merely false, it is absurd; the overwhelming majority of people take (recreational) drugs of some sort, be it alcohol, tobacco, cannabis or MDMA. Pretending that alcohol, the most popular powerfully mind-altering drug in our society, is somehow not a drug, or that its popularity and long traditions of use should somehow exempt it from being assessed according to the same criteria as other drugs, is utterly disingenuous, and I wish the interviewer had not let him get away with this linguistic duplicity, since it relieves Mr Brokenshire of the burden of proof. If he thinks that people who use cannabis deserve to be punished but people who use alcohol do not, he must provide a principled justification for drawing that distinction.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm talking about the purity of anything really, i know the varying levels of coke and stuff, and to be fair i believe you when you say that coke in this country is shit, i've tried coke, on about 3 occasions in my life, and well it wasn't everything i thought it'd be to be fair.
    It's just you do work out the people who sell 30% and the people who sell 70% and the people who pass off MDVP as coke.
    It's all the same.
    That's my only dig with prohabition of drugs, is the fact that when meph was legal, it was 100% pure, and now it's everything but that...
    It's another reason why i just stick to my smoke now.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Each reply in the interview starts with an opinion/moral view/lie and then uses that statement to validate the rest of the reply and reasoning.

    I think the only opinion you gave that was plausible was (in relation to young people) "...the majority that do, are not addicted..." You know whats sending the wrong message? Telling the kids that drugs are bad and then idolising people like The Beatles who smoked weed before opening up the "Just Say No" conference with Ragean.

    Jamie, do you honestly beleive that only a minority of people in the UK consume illicit drugs? ? Do you think that the junkies who steal for their fix are making the illegal drugs trade the 3rd largest industry in the world? Every family i know has a car, yet the automobile industry is collapsing under our feet. So just imagine how many people need to consume illicit drugs each day to make the profits of that industry so large.

    The dependant and hopelessly addicted people are the only people targetted by your drugs stratergy and your replys (and not very well might i add when prescription heroin will cost you less and reduce crime without the need for them to hurdle the criminal justice system which makes getting back on their feet/job so much easier). What about those ravers who want to listen to music and trip out on E? What option do that have in your drugs stratergy? Apparently they should turn to drink and smoke tobacco, because thats culturally exceptable? Just like when you go down to the pub and see the mumbling, lonely, stuttering drunk in the corner/collapsed out the back, while hundreds of others socialise and culturally respect the drink out front, there are people whos lifes path has lead them to illcit substance abuse and then there are people who socially use drugs without ill effects flowing through to their everyday lives.

    Its a real shame, what you say makes sense, but only in a world where drugs and consumption is done by a minority of people. Why would you legalise drugs if hardly anyone wanted to use them? That would mean prohibition had worked. It would make no sense at all, even i agree with that. But you cannot produce a single statistic that shows this drugs trade is a minor player in our society. Every police statistic, every war, every music festival, every movie reference, every survey, every policy decision. Everything points to the industry being anything BUT minor. You cannot even bury your head in the sand these days without getting high on all the byproducts of the trade.

    But hey, according to you, if drugs were legalised, and had their dosage regulated, purity ensured, people would still by from the black market. Yeh, the why pay $1 for a mesured does of MDMA, when that junkie on the corner is selling a black market adulterated version for 50c. To fund his H habit that now only cost him $10 a month on the NHS. Your already going to him for your 6pack of larger and malboro lights, so whats a little more MDMA of unknown origin? Or better yet, that junkie now has to diversify, and instead of supplying me with MDMA, he now does $10 deals on afgani housewives.

    Keep dreaming, before prohibition, THERE WAS _NO_ BLACK MARKET.

    Regards,
    A recreational drug user who works 9-5, pays taxes, votes and earns more money then most familys do combined.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    But hey, according to you, if drugs were legalised, and had their dosage regulated, purity ensured, people would still by from the black market.

    Keep dreaming, before prohibition, THERE WAS _NO_ BLACK MARKET.

    So how do you explain the black market in tobacco and alcohol, both of which are freely available to purchase in any supermarket in the country?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    So how do you explain the black market in tobacco and alcohol, both of which are freely available to purchase in any supermarket in the country?

    That's more to do with cost and taxes. People don't see (specially cigs) as cheap. I don't know a single person who sells alcohol on the black market. Maybe on the side to make some money from buying cheap booze abroad [or to minors on their behalf] - but that's the main origin of the black market of those, imports of tax free, cheap tobacco/alcohol.
  • SkiveSkive Posts: 15,282 Skive's The Limit
    So how do you explain the black market in tobacco and alcohol, both of which are freely available to purchase in any supermarket in the country?

    There'd be no blackmarket heroin if addicts were given what they need for free.
    Weekender Offender 
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Heroin should be on prescription, definitely, I think the positives outweigh the negatives. I said as much in my previous post.

    My point was that alcohol and tobacco are both freely available to buy in a wide range of places, yet we still have a black market in them. I understand why- duty and taxes, mostly- but if cannabis or cocaine (for example) were legalised you'd see similar levels of taxation on those drugs. Therefore you'd still have a black market and, yes, people would go and buy MDMA out the back of a van if it saved them £5 a go in tax. They go and buy black market fags and booze, often with no idea if they're buying Smirnoff or if they're buying antifreeze in a fake Smirnoff bottle.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Heroin should be on prescription, definitely, I think the positives outweigh the negatives. I said as much in my previous post.

    My point was that alcohol and tobacco are both freely available to buy in a wide range of places, yet we still have a black market in them. I understand why- duty and taxes, mostly- but if cannabis or cocaine (for example) were legalised you'd see similar levels of taxation on those drugs. Therefore you'd still have a black market and, yes, people would go and buy MDMA out the back of a van if it saved them £5 a go in tax. They go and buy black market fags and booze, often with no idea if they're buying Smirnoff or if they're buying antifreeze in a fake Smirnoff bottle.

    The difference with that is more with cost versus production. You can get alcohol very cheaply, which encourages black market and binge drinking (but it wouldn't change it if it was more expensive, it's just readily available). Smirnoff Ice in a bottle, bought even wholesale is still a lot cheaper than it is for someone to put some anti-freeze in a bottle. They'll lose money, the effort to do it, it's just not worth the hassle. The case with current illegal drugs, like cannabis, MDMA, cocaine, heroin - they could all be faked, and it would benefit someone to fake them because you wouldn't be able to test their purity that instant, as you could with alcohol (smell, taste) and tobacco. If they were legal, you'd have less worries of testing their purity in the streets without fear of being arrested - which would put a few dodgy dealers off which is only a plus, but you'd still get the odd few with anything.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yet we continue to see counterfeit alcohol being sold- either a cheap 'generic' alcohol packaged as a premium brand, or indeed using alcohol that's not fit for human consumption being used. Trading standards teams up and down the country are constantly catching these people, and these are the ones stupid enough to get caught. Trading standards don't catch most counterfeit traders, but they're there.

    If the 'legal' version is taxed then you've created a black market for yourself. And given that a four-pack of Bulmers and 20 B&Hs is highly taxed, you'd see even higher levels of duty on drugs like MDMA or cocaine, or even cannabis, if they were ever legalised and available to buy off-prescription (which is, of course, what most drug users want from legalisation).
  • SkiveSkive Posts: 15,282 Skive's The Limit
    Making alcohol and tobacco is relatively cheap and easy, that's why a black market exists.
    The same cannot be said for MDMA. Do you know how difficult it is to aquire the ingredients to make it, and the manafacturing it isn't all that easy. Even with taxation the real deal is going to be cheaper than any black market gear.
    I cant see any reason to legalise cocaine, apart from being terribly addictive, and damaging, it's continues to fuck up and cause misery in South and Central America.

    You're completely missing the point that we already have a blackmarket in these things becuase they are illegal. Every sinlge sale of these substances is a criminal black market sale. A mixture of decriminalisation and legalisation (lets not make the mistake of treating all drugs the same) would result in shrinking the existing black market, even if doesn't completely disapear, it's a step in the right direction

    If alcohol were illegal can you imagine how big the black market would be and the consequences? Al Capone? Methanol poisoning?
    Yes we have problems with drink in this country, but a blanket ban on alcohol wouldn't solve it, it would make it worse - as it does with most drugs.
    Weekender Offender 
Sign In or Register to comment.