Report: Legalising drugs would save UK plc huge packet

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by edesignuk, Apr 7, 2009.

  1. edesignuk Moderator emeritus

    edesignuk

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    Location:
    London, England
    #1
    The Register.

    Shocking! :eek: :p :rolleyes:
     
  2. Shivetya macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2008
    #2
    I am all for legalizing marijuana. It takes quite a bit to mess up others and we have lots of DUI/DWI laws that can cover misuse in a motor vehicle.

    As for ecstasy/etc, uh no.


    I think the misguided war on drugs; at least in the US; started during the Nixon administration needs to be seriously changed. We could tax the piss out of MJ and ensure its safe delivery by retail...

    of course we could still keep it illegal to grow it yourself, that way they don't lose a tax revenue.


    The real problem we face is that we have too many petty criminals in jail (for minor drug offenses) that we can't keep the loonies in.
     
  3. Cromulent macrumors 603

    Cromulent

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2006
    Location:
    The Land of Hope and Glory
    #3
    What is wrong with Ecstasy? It is a pretty safe drug and people high on it are unlikely to get violent hence the term "loved up on E". Now, alcohol on the other hand is pretty much the mirror image of Ecstasy, dangerous and drinkers are very likely to get violent.
     
  4. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #4
    Ecstacy and milder forms of cannabis yes, but skunk, heroin, coke are probably not such good ideas.
     
  5. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #5
    http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13237193

    I haven't seen a serious case for keeping drugs illegal to be honest.
     
  6. Mord macrumors G4

    Mord

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2003
    Location:
    UK
    #6
    I'd pose to make a sane level of cannabidiol a requirement in legal cannabis, modern superskunk is much higher in THC but does not contain equivalent amounts of cannabidiol which is an anti-psychotic, I'd have nothing against stronger varieties being legal if they had a high cannabidiol level too.

    Most people I know prefer more balanced "giggly" weed so I doubt the populace would have an issue with this.

    For E I'd only be in favour of legalising it if properly safe use was common knowledge or by having it a legal requirement to sell it cut with anti-oxidants and perhaps 5-htp. The neurotoxicity can be entirely blocked with ease but most people just don't know enough about the drug to take the relevant precautions.

    Most of the drug harm is due to poor education IMO, it sends completely the wrong message to have a fairly harmless popular drug like ecstasy in the same class as heroin and crack, I know countless people who've tried E then moved onto other class A's assuming that they're just as safe. if only physically addictive and seriously harmful drugs were illegal people would have far more respect for the drug laws, especially if they were educated honestly about the true relative harm.

    The only reason ecstasy pills are harmful is what it's all too often cut with (meth, PMA, MDA, mCPP and a multitude of more dangerous drugs many of which are legal)

    As a pure compound it's remarkably safe, you'd have to consume ~5g of the stuff to put your health at serious risk and the typical dose is 1/50th of that
     
  7. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #7
    Given how paranoid the UK is on health and safety I'm sure it would be cut with something appropriate if it was legalised - just like other prescription drugs.

    +1
     
  8. iBlue macrumors Core

    iBlue

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Location:
    London, England
    #8
    I completely agree. Bolded is a very good point, I hadn't thought of the message that sends out.

    Although I am not sure how easily a strain (skunk) can be weeded out, as it were. Might need to just let that one go with a warning ("High THC, low CBD = intensely not funny high") and let the people decide for themselves.

    Oh in an ideal world where people can make choices like this.

    I imagine the government won't back down. They've spent huge sums sending out BS propaganda to people. politicians do not like admitting they are wrong.
     
  9. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #9
    Why not? They can blame the last lot for getting it wrong.
     
  10. iBlue macrumors Core

    iBlue

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Location:
    London, England
    #10
    Well then someone needs to get that absolute cundiddlyunt Jacqui Smith out of there! It's our only hope! :p
     
  11. WinterMute Moderator emeritus

    WinterMute

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Location:
    London, England
    #11
    Sure, legalise drugs, you'd simultaneously kill the worst of the illegal drug trade and the dependancies and violence that goes along with it, plus you'd make a fortune for the Exchequer in tax revenue.

    While you about it repeal the seatbelt laws and the crash helmet laws, and lower the age of alcohol use to, say, 12.

    Then instruct the populace that no drug or alcohol related illnesses or accidents will be paid for by the NHS and that only private healthcare will cover these diseases.

    That way we make those who chose to take drugs/drink to excess/drive without seatbelts or helmets pay for themselves when they get f*cked over by their drug of choice.

    You can have all the choices in the world, but you have to take responsibility for them.
     
  12. chrmjenkins macrumors 603

    chrmjenkins

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Location:
    CA
    #12
    This is important for us Americans too, especially because of our border violence. I wonder what effect it would have on this to legalize the milder drugs while keeping the hard ones illegal. Legalization isn't a magic wand, but I definitely think it would do more good than harm.
     
  13. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #13
    I'd think the truly dangerous stuff (i.e. anything that is worse for you than alcohol) would only be available on prescription. I certainly don't think you should be able to go down to your local store and pick up some heroin, you'd certainly need a prescription, like you would for morphine or any other dangerous drug that's only available on prescription.

    Though to be perfectly honest being able to go down to your local store (well make a couple of phonecalls) to get heroin basically what the position is in the UK right now.
     
  14. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #14
    Obviously drugs would only be legal for users over 18, like alcohol and cigarettes are right now.
     
  15. WinterMute Moderator emeritus

    WinterMute

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Location:
    London, England
    #15
    Whatever makes it politically palatable...;)

    The trick is to ruin the criminals profit margin, thus putting him out of business.

    People already have the choice to take drugs, and legalising them won't mean everyone and his wife will be shooting up.

    As I said, offset the cost of the healthcare with private provision, hell you could make it a condition of sale that you have sight of a private health scheme ID card. You could sell the schemes right on the packs.

    I see an emerging market!!
     
  16. Mord macrumors G4

    Mord

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2003
    Location:
    UK
    #16
    I'd only support that there was a set amount of risk that disallowed you NHS treatment, horse riding kills more than ecstasy does. Both habits are purely "for fun" why should the drug user be discriminated against when others live currently legal precarious lifestyles.

    Never mind the fact that this would just push drug use underground again, if I had a choice between losing NHS cover and buying illicit black-market MDMA I'd go for the black market stuff every time. It's not like it stays in your urine for more than a couple of days.

    I don't personally drink and everything I do do is very low in health risks (bar riding pillion on a motorcycle occasionally) I don't see why I should be penalised because I indulge in low risk drugs occasionally. I get my liver/kidneys tested on a regular basis due to prescription meds I'm on and I can tell you for a fact from experience that alcohol is harder on the body than typical MDMA use. Interesting though my liver function was worst while on a drug I was needlessly prescribed by the NHS!
     
  17. yojitani macrumors 68000

    yojitani

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2005
    Location:
    An octopus's garden
    #17
    In the case of marijuana especially, it is something that can be cultivated at home or at least domestically. If cultivation were legalized, the border trade in marijuana would end very quickly... I'm an avid gardener and would certainly do my bit:D.

    I guess times have changed on attitudes towards E. I wouldn't say it's harmless or even less harmful than alcohol.

    I'm all for complete legalization of all currently illegal drugs. With that said, I do not buy the arguments comparing those drugs to alcohol. We do not, or at least I do not, drink alcohol in order to impair my senses. I CAN, but I typically do not. One beer, especially in America! :(, isn't the equivalent of one joint or one quick hit on a pipe or whatever. Perhaps the potential danger is greater with alcohol...

    Yes, education is key here. My drugs education in the UK (at school) was pretty weak (I'm sure the people teaching it were sedated at my school anyway), but here in the US I've noticed from the information coming back from my son's school that there is a huge problem with scare tactics and misinformation... It's also criminal how kids caught with drugs are closed off from loans, effectively ending their higher education (unless they are funded by wealthy parents).
     
  18. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #18
    Of course not, but the users will pay money to the government as tax rather than criminals in exchange for the risk of illegally getting the stuff into the country.
     
  19. yojitani macrumors 68000

    yojitani

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2005
    Location:
    An octopus's garden
    #19
    From one type of criminal to another, eh? :p
     
  20. WinterMute Moderator emeritus

    WinterMute

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Location:
    London, England
    #20
    OK, go for a sliding scale, if you bust your neck riding a horse, but you were wearing correct protective gear and under supervision, fine you get the NHS treatment, if you were hacking through woodland in a t-shirt and shorts, tough. Hope your insurance is paid up.

    Same with the drugs, overdosed on your "heroin-R-Us" supply? No worries, go to the private clinic your paying for. Too much dancing on your E, get treated for the dehydration and possible death on the NHS....!

    The horse and the heroin (oh the irony) are both for "fun", and used correctly should put the user in no danger, incorrect use carries a penalty.

    I might be playing devils advocate here a little btw, but I'm bored and writing a report.

    Just read your edit:

    I'd stop the alcoholics and smokers getting NHS treatment too. ;-)
     
  21. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #21
    What about fat people getting no NHS treatment? After all they could eat less :p.

    You surprised me to be against this actually ;).
     
  22. WinterMute Moderator emeritus

    WinterMute

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Location:
    London, England
    #22
    Exactly, and the risk of contacting criminal organisations for your supply, of getting bad junk and of arrest and incarceration.

    The country wins all round really.
     
  23. Mord macrumors G4

    Mord

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2003
    Location:
    UK
    #23
    You've merely gained tolerance to alcohol, nearly everyone is a lightweight when they start. I can drop a typical (80mg) pill and it won't impair me in the slightest, hell I can also function as I normally would on a modest dose of LSD. Tolerance is not indicative of safety.

    The difference is that alcohol is a pleasurable thing to drink for the taste, pills taste horrible, no one would do them unless they intended for them to have significant effect. The point your raise is a significant danger with alcohol, you can drink it and drink it day after day without significantly impairing your judgement however it will cause organ damage over time.

    Believe me, I know.
     
  24. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #24
    That's not totally fair. Now they have serious ID requirements for alcohol (driving licence/passport) I'd be surprised if it wasn't much harder to get under age.
     
  25. WinterMute Moderator emeritus

    WinterMute

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Location:
    London, England
    #25
    You really want me to go there?

    Against legalisation of drugs? I'm not really, I just don't want to pay for other peoples stupidity.

    Fair point, it just makes the case for legalisation easier to cost.
     

Share This Page