

Decriminalise drugs, inquiry by cross-party peers says - arethuza
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21004715

======
jwdunne
I've been following all of this information about decriminalisation closely,
including what the results from Portugal, which I found really interesting.

I don't get David Cameron at all. This may be due to my upbringing, which is
working class where Tories are generally hated, sometimes irrationally, but I
don't think my confusion is irrational.

He seems very ignorant, down to the core. This is a man who hasn't lived the
working class life, hasn't come close to touching it. He is even descends from
royalty.

He says his policies are beneficial to the majority of the UK, which simply
isn't true. The increase on VAT hit the poorest families hard. The rejig on
child support hit the families hard.

The problem is that it doesn't seem like he's even aware of these effects and
it seems true here too.

He says that their current policies are working fine and that it's the right
way forward yet "over-crowded prisons" have become a meme.

It's costing us money to house people in prisons for these crimes. It's
costing us money when these people cannot contribute to society, which some
may actually would have done if they weren't in prison.

I see kids influenced by drug dealers into trying things out. I know this, I
was one of them (stupid, I admit). Once they've become accustomed to one
thing, something harder is introduced.

It just seems extremely ignorant to me.

~~~
arethuza
I don't think he is ignorant at all - he knows fine well that the "traditonal"
Conservative voter would never back a party that supported greater freedom
(and commonsense) around drugs.

~~~
hackerboos
Which is ironic considering letting people do what they want with their own
bodies is pretty conservative.

~~~
seabee
Conservatism isn't synonymous with libertarianism.

------
alamgir_mand
I find it interesting that the recent conversations surrounding the
legalization of cannabis in WA and CO have sparked discussions of legalization
of synthesized drugs like amphetamines and cocaine. Cannabis is one of the few
drugs sourced from nature without any purification or isolating processes. Not
only is it naturally occurring, but it also is the safest among today's
federally illegal "drugs".

That being said, I have to agree that the best way to get rid of illegal
activity is to tax and regulate a product so as to provide a trustworthy,
straightforward source. But there's a question as to whether it's advisable to
allow citizens to consume drugs that have normally been known to drastically
reduce peoples' health and well-being. These drugs actively cause addiction
while suppressing other bodily functions, but so do cigarettes. Did you know
that nicotine is as addictive as heroine, cocaine, and other alkaloids[1]? The
question as to where to draw the line is very sensitive and I often wonder why
did Prohibition stop at alcohol? Why didn't it naturally extend itself towards
cannabis and then hard drugs? Does anybody know the history/politics behind
this?

[1] [http://www.nytimes.com/1987/03/29/magazine/nicotine-
harder-t...](http://www.nytimes.com/1987/03/29/magazine/nicotine-harder-to-
kickthan-heroin.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm)

~~~
DanBC2
> But there's a question as to whether it's advisable to allow citizens to
> consume drugs that [...]

The current approach is very expensive, and very harmful to individuals and to
society.

Someone injecting heroin will do so whether it's legal or not. But, if it's
legal, they'll be getting clean heroin, and clean needles, and advice about
how to safely inject, and be in contact with people helping them move down to
other forms of heroin use.

While heroin is illegal people prostitute or burgle to get money; they re-use
needles in unclean conditions; they inject dirty drugs in sub-optimal places;
they have little or no contact with harm-reduction workers.

The costs to society are obvious: people spend many years involved in criminal
activity to feed a drug habit. Police spend a lot of time tackling that
criminal behaviour. People end up with life-threatening illnesses, or
permanent maiming or losing limbs from dirty needles and poor injection
practices.

Treating this as a public health measure is probably sensible. Having said
that, alcohol use in the UK can't really be defined as ok.

> That being said, I have to agree that the best way to get rid of illegal
> activity is to tax and regulate a product so as to provide a trustworthy,
> straightforward source.

Probably, but look at the huge quantities of smuggled tobacco in the UK caused
by the high tax rate.

See, also, garlic smuggled from Norway (not an EU state) through Sweden (part
of the EU, which adds a 9% tax for garlic grown outside the EU.)

(<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20976887>)

(<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20667816>)

~~~
scott_w
"While heroin is illegal people prostitute or burgle to get money"

The legality of an addictive substance doesn't make much difference to whether
someone will commit a crime to get their fix.

Consider: people commit crimes to get money to buy alcohol. People also steal
other legal goods they want e.g. TVs, laptops.

~~~
neumann_alfred
_Consider: people commit crimes to get money to buy alcohol._

How can you consider that, without also considering that most people don't?
Price does make a difference.

~~~
scott_w
I don't really see how that's relevant.

I was responding to the point "people commit crimes to fund their drug habit
because drugs are illegal".

One way of verifying this (without de-criminalisation) is to compare drug
usage to alcohol usage, and the crime rates of people funding either habit.

It's a hard study to do because there are other factors in play e.g. a pimp
keeping his prostitutes dependent on drugs is a different situation to people
prostituting to buy drugs.

~~~
neumann_alfred
_One way of verifying this (without de-criminalisation) is to compare drug
usage to alcohol usage_

That's why the fact that most alcoholics don't commit crimes to get their fix
is relevant. Sure, some do, sometimes, but on the whole, it's a vastly
different picture; and the price, and not being pushed into shady alleys with
shady people has to do with it.

Just consider the Prohibition, and also the experiences of all the countries
who partially or completely decrimalized hard drugs, which is generally a
success story.

------
nicholassmith
It'll never happen under the current government for the simple fact that
whilst all the research shows it'd be a net positive, it'd make the government
look like it was weak on crime. Probably never happen at all given Labour is
the only other choice and we saw what happened with Nutt when he spoke out
against the current laws.

~~~
TelmoMenezes
There is also strong lobbying in the USA from the industries that grew around
the prohibition - namely private prisions and the DEA.

~~~
nicholassmith
I did not know that, but I'm not overly surprised as legalisation chops the
legs off their business model. Thankfully we don't have quite the same
problems in the UK, but the government is so desperate to appeal to the groups
that make the most noise by appearing 'tough' on crime, including personal
drug use.

