Drugs Decriminalisation: Naive "Celebs" Know Nothing.

[Kerosene]

A whole host of so called "celebrities" have been canvassing the Government calling for drugs to be decriminalised. The poor, misguided fools!

Have any of them actually seen a dead druggie? With a needle sticking out of a vein? Their body blackened and bloated? The staring eyes? I have.

Have any of them had to go and inform families that their son/daughter's been found like that in some stinking hovel? I have.

Have any of them seen the lives wrecked by not only the drugs dealers, but by the poor sad individuals addicted to these substances? I have.

Have any of them seen the wider ramifications of drug addiction? The little experiement with a bit of weed which swifly can spiral out of control into full blown addiction to hard drugs, crack cocaine, smack etc. The dependancy which often leads to a life of crime to finance the habit? The intolerable strain placed on the likes of the NHS because of such addictions? The families rent asunder by loved ones who are no longer the nice people they once were because of the effects of these substances? I have.

No, no way should any government scrap the drugs offences laws which, some might say, are never properly enforced anyway. It would be the slippery slope to rack and ruin.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13625241

[emmie]

i have seen many peoples lives ruined by drug use, not least a close relative and his friends, many of whom are dead now. They started off with pills, upper and downers, then weed then hard drugs. We are not talking recently but the hippy days of the 60's, so called free love and lets all get stoned. In my opinion the drugs policies that are in place haven't worked. Why not have a tougher drug rehabilitation programme, getting addicts into programmes that give them high level support, with the proviso of no long term treatment, go to jail. Surely we can look at the americans approach and see where that has failed so miserably. More people locked up with tougher sentences than almost anywhere on the planet, and many are young, poor, and black. The same is happening here, drug dealing gang members controlling their turfs who are killing without remorse, and the addicts who lie, steal, and are driven to prostitution to feed their needs.
The government needs to have a major rethink, legalise or not, whats in place now is only going to get worse.

[Kromovaracun]

It really depends what drugs you're talking about. A lot of the more common/popular ones (weed, MDMA) are really no more dangerous to public or individual health than tobacco is - despite some dramatic cases that have been paraded by the press. Plus the 'gateway drug' argument is somewhat inconsistent and really depends quite a lot on the attitude of particular users - the evidence suggests they -can- be gateway drugs, not that they are. But realistically if you think about it, you'd have to be a particular kind of person for that to happen.

I also disagree with NJ on the idea that it's penalties which are the problem - which as far as I can tell he's provided no evidence for whatsoever. I'd say the problem for law enforcement isn't in how to punish, it's just in sheer scale - If you're talking about ecstasy alone, you're talking about 500,000ish users every year. And then consider how commonplace drugs like cannabis are - this is fact of common knowledge. How on earth do you police something on that scale? The fact of the matter is that most drugs are widely available to anyone who cares to go looking. Focusing on punishments for 'addicts' ignores the fact that it's supply that's the problem.

Having said all that, I really don't know what the solution is on really dangerous drugs like Heroin. The current system certainly does make distinctions between 'seriousness' of drugs (and rightly so), and I'm really not sure what can be done about the nastier ones. I do think that legalisation might actually reduce the 'gateway' effect, though given that the most common drugs would be coming from a legitimate supplier - I've no evidence for it, but it just seems to make sense.

[ChuckFickens]

"but it just seems to make sense."

Hold up.... your not allowed to make sense when talking about drugs! it's got to be done in an unknowledgeable rant by people that have only ever had the rubbish sprouted by the gutter press forced down their throats and believe everything they read is true.

[jno]

talk of 'gateways' is kind of random. Most heroin users started on cannabis? Most heroin users started on mother's milk. The reason for not outlawing mother's milk is that 99.9%* of those who take it don't go on to heroin; just as the reason for not outlawing cars is that 99.9% of drivers don't run over babies. The utility far outweighs the risk and the potential costs of a ban.

* made-up statistic

[New Judge]

I think this thread demonstrates that there are two very opposing sides in this debate. I'm dipping out because I think I've said all that I think I can, but I would like to thank DrFilth for his/her support. It's nice to have a debate, to differ, but to still respect other side's points of view.

[Kromovaracun]

@jno: Yes, I agree. Gateway theory definitely has something to it but I refuse to believe it's anything like as simplistic as people make it out to be. Again, I stress that I'm speculating based on some counselling(ish) I've done with drug users, and some training I've received from a regional substance-abuse support organisation. But I think you have to have a particular kind of attitude towards drug use for the gateway effect to happen. Which doesn't mean it's not a problem, it just means it needs understanding better.

[jackthehat]

jno makes up statistics !?!?

I'm disappointed.........

[Answerprancer]

Your OP and responses seem very 'loaded' to me Kerosene, hardly a comfortable basis for unbiased debate is it.