I was going to post
a story about me getting mugged, but it wasn't very exciting.
Lots of the crimes on this QotW seem to be drug-related. I can't help but think that if we ended the futile "war on drugs" by just legalising the lot, things would be better. Not that drugs are good per se - but if we let people smoke and drink we're effectively licensing, and making tax revenue on, extremely harmful substances. Letting someone smoke but not take E seems somewhat of a contradiction.
Those "oldies" amongst us will doubtless remember in our youthful naivety the dream that one day legalisation would happen. In reality we're no closer to it now than ever. The younger readers on this site should take that to heart. If you think these laws will change by themselves - they won't. If you think the war on drugs can be won - it can't. If you don't want to spend the rest of your life being hassled by some smack or crack head whose sad habit could be fed legitimately for a few quid, instead of the thousands they need to steal to fund the dealers - then stand up and try and make the change.
The West needs an honest debate about drugs - they're not going away, and we're just getting more and more into Prohibition-style gangster territory.
Maybe I should have told you about when I got mugged instead ?!? Sorry to preach...
( I_Was_Mordred, Wed 20 Feb 2008, 8:04, 14 replies)

Amen Brother!
too right
(Batemonkey, Wed 20 Feb 2008, 9:36, closed)

Indeed. Legalisation means...
... that drug use can be treated like the health problem it is
... that crime rates would fall, fewer things being illegal
... that pushers would be eliminated
... that street prices would fall (because of the last point)
... that crime would fall further (because of the last point)
... that supplier prices would rise (because of the legitimacy)
... that places like Afghanistan and Colombia would become wealthier (because of the last point)
... that places like Afghanistan and Colombia would become more stable (because of the last point)
... that the world would become a safer place (because of the last point).

Don't get me wrong: I think that a lot of drug use is immensely damaging, immensely foolish, and turns many people into psychos or bores. But a lot of it is also pretty unproblematic - ecstacy is pretty safe, for example. I'm all for people being less boxed less of the time - but driving the trade underground is a very silly way to go about it.

/rant over.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 20 Feb 2008, 10:07, closed)

^^ Absolutely
I've only ever taken illegal drugs once - a futile attempt at smoking a joint when no one had any cigarettes - we used a cigar - it was crap.
I have no desire whatsoever to take anything illegal (I keep mentioning illegal because I have been completely and utterly out of my head on legal drugs but that's another story entirely...).

Anyway, just because I don't want to take them doesn't mean they shouldn't be legal. I don't want to smoke either, but I don't have a problem with adults making that choice.

Smoking can kill you. Drug taking can entirely fuck up your mental health. Alcohol can kill you too.

But it's the individual's choice.

And as Enzyme points out it would improve the economic success of many countries and take a good deal of crime out of our society.
( chickenlady b3ta's very own Elizabeth Taylor, Wed 20 Feb 2008, 10:58, closed)

the way I see it
as a regular smoker of pot, and in the past, very occasional user of other stuff, is that people are going to be doing it anyway, so why not legalise, allowing tighter control on quality and hence safety, reducing the price, but vastly increasing tax revenue.
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 20 Feb 2008, 11:11, closed)

Exactly- But...
Which politician is going to stick his head above the parapet and say "Legalise all drugs now"? It would kill their political career...
(Le Misanthrope last procrastinated on, Wed 20 Feb 2008, 11:22, closed)

the politician question is a strange one
there has been such a change in attitude to most things between my parents generation (those in power at the moment) and mine (I'm 26). helped along by rapid developments in technology and such.

I think once the current generation are filtering out of the government, and younger people, who have grown up our technology and an improved ability to understand the "mtv generation" are coming into power then we may see issues such as the legalisation of drugs being re-examined.

or maybe that's wishful thinking and I'm worrying that as I get older it's going to be harder for me to get hold of any....
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 20 Feb 2008, 11:42, closed)

Its definately a debate worth having
As a mental health professional (who finds that a large proportion of service users with more extreme mental health problems put the onset of their difficulties down to drug - usually cannabis - use) I think it would be helpful to see some well-researched actuarial predictions about how legalising drug use would impact on the prevalence of consumption.

On the other side of the argument, there are huge social costs linked to drug use other than crime - housing, unemployment benefit, addiction services, mental health and physical health services - which are all very expensive, and much more likely to be drawn on by someone with even minor drug problems.
(cherrynicola, Wed 20 Feb 2008, 11:44, closed)

Le Misanthrope
Politicians and senior policemen DO stick their head up and make this point. It's just the knee-jerk reactions of Daily Mail readers force them down again. FFS, even the Daily Torygraph (Telegraph) was pre-legalisation (of cannabis) back in 99.
The issue is that when people do become pro-legalisation, they don't receive the support they need. If we all stopped inhaling for a minute or two, and got up off our backsides and actually contacted our MPs or our local papers supporting legalisation, maybe something would start to change.
It's a saying that "politics is showbusiness for ugly people". Like showbiz, politics is audience-run. Focus groups - it's just a way of saying "if we do x, will the public swallow it or not". Politics is mostly, strangely enough, listening to opinion. It might not seem like it, but it is. If the opinions of the enlightened were more widely heard, those opinions would rule. How come Amsterdam, Holland and Spain have more liberal, realistic drugs policies ? It didn't happen by accident.
If 10% of the millions of clubbers and tokers that exist in this fair land actually wrote to their MPs and said - it's time for a change - things would happen.
We have, like it or not, the government we CHOSE to have. We live in a democracy. If anyone doubts that, remember the Poll Tax riots; remember the price of fuel going down when all the truckers instigated a go slow. Governments *do* listen to people - if people get up off their backside. And before someone says "why did we go into Iraq, with all the anti-war protests" - well, if a general strike had been called, we'd never have gone in. History shows endless examples of how once the people decide the rules are wrong, the rules change - and that is in much more oppressive regimes than the one we live in. As long as the politicians know that via "Bread and Circuses" they can get away with what they do without more than the murmurings of complaint, they will. Like it or not, WE have to accept responsibility for the way things are - because of our apathy to do anything else.
And breathe...sorry for ranting (again !)
( I_Was_Mordred, Wed 20 Feb 2008, 11:46, closed)

a rant it may be
but a well put one, with some valid points

you've got my vote
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 20 Feb 2008, 12:07, closed)

!
I was all for legalisation until someone pointed out that if we legalised drugs, all the other countries would still be illegal.

We would therefore become the world's foremost manufacturing and trading post for the world's illegal drugs supply, which might not necessarily atttract the nicest people to our shores.

I think that there should be strong penalties for dealing, and no penalties for possession.
And good quaslity heroin should be free on the NHS, so nobody needs to commit crime to buy it any more.
( browser still relating boring anecdotes into a void on, Wed 20 Feb 2008, 16:23, closed)

^ this is very true
and something that I had not really considered

if this is the case, then I have no choice but to take over the entire world.

obviously there are too many people in it to manage effectively, after all I am just one man; I'm going to have to eliminate roughly two thirds of the population of the earth.

who's with me?

or, alternatively, how about a licencing system similar to that used for booze?

if, by law, only certain licenced people are allowed to manufacture and sell, then the supply can be better controlled.

perhaps
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 20 Feb 2008, 16:29, closed)

I like what Cherrynicola had to say
When having this kind of discussion, it is easy to forget the downside of legalization. This is probably because the people discussing this issue are all for legalization. But there are costs associated with legalization like health care, housing, unemployment benefits, etc. But there are also human costs like how use affects not just the user, but the families as well. I was lucky not to have any repurcussions from my years of playing around with various illegal substances, but more and more that is not the norm. I look at my jail roster every day and a good 75% of the inmates are in for either possession, sales, manufacturing, or a drug-related charge like burglary, robbery, assault, DUI, etc (burglary to finance the drug use, assault while high, driving under the influence of a substance). Think of the costs to the victims of those crimes: the wifes, husbands, mothers, fathers, children, grandparents, etc. Yes, you have the same kinds of crimes related to alcohol, but not nearly on the same scale. So, you have to ask yourself, whether you use or not, do you want your tax dollars paying for not only someone's habbit, but also their housing, food, utilities, medical care, psychological care, etc? Do we want to live in a society that is strung out? This is something that can easily become a slippery slope: legalize pot then people start thinking, 'well, why not legalize coke too? or meth?' Frankly, I'm already ticked enough that my tax dollars are paying to take care of the addicts that are working the system, I certainly don't want that population to increase.
( flirting with badgers What? It sounded good at the time., Thu 21 Feb 2008, 0:43, closed)

With regards to the last point
Agreed - legalisation does not bring us to a utopia where all the problems are solved. Personally, I now feel at 40 I've got a bit bored of drugs, and thankfully as I was never a fan of charlie and didn't go down the smack route, all's well that ends well - I have no criminal record and drugs for me have been good things rather than bad things. Likewise, I don't smoke any more and I rarely drink (is life worth living now !). Anyway, I'm lucky enough to be able to "take it or leave it" when it comes to things that affect one's brain.
Many people don't have that luxury. Do we want to live in a strung out society you ask - I'd argue we already do ! Ideally, no, everyone just dips in to the occasional bit of consciousness-changing product, and then gets on with their lives. This, of course, is outright crap and will never happen.
Legalisation doesn't get rid of the users, but it gets rid of a lot of criminals. It also secures purity and price of supply - saving lots of users from injury and death. It generates tax revenue that could be used to help get people off substances if that's what they want.
You'll never stop consumption of things that fuck the brain up - it's what we as a species have been doing from day one. So "prevention" is always going to be a failed policy. "Cure" on the other is more realistic, but trying to limit supply is not a cure that will ever work and like I've said, just creates a massive criminal underclass.
( I_Was_Mordred, Thu 21 Feb 2008, 7:56, closed)

You must enter a subject.
Flirting with badgers:

You say you see the same crimes related to alcohol as you do related to illegal drugs, just not as many...

Does that not suggest to you that if these drugs were legalised, then the crime rate related to these drugs would drop?
(Heggy, Thu 21 Feb 2008, 9:11, closed)