Body & Soul3 mins ago
What Is This Man On . . .?
Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg backs calls for a royal commission to consider decriminalising illegal drugs . . .
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by sir.prize. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
Myconern with the decriminalisation of drugs is that you'd have to be very carefulto avoid the "Amsterdam effect" and people coming to the UK just for drugs tourism.
I don't know if any decriminalisation proponants have any thoughts on that.
There is I suppose space between legalisation and decriminalisation, that drug use might be treated in the same way as parking offences
I don't know if any decriminalisation proponants have any thoughts on that.
There is I suppose space between legalisation and decriminalisation, that drug use might be treated in the same way as parking offences
ChuckFickens,
I'm just pointing out some of the potential pitfalls, ramifications, probable legislature and inevitable pitfalls in what will doubtless become a legal minefield entrenched in directives from Brussels, followed by subsequent legal challenges that will be possibly be theatrically and pathetically played out at the ECHR on behalf of some miscreant, at massive cost to the taxpayer.
I'm just pointing out some of the potential pitfalls, ramifications, probable legislature and inevitable pitfalls in what will doubtless become a legal minefield entrenched in directives from Brussels, followed by subsequent legal challenges that will be possibly be theatrically and pathetically played out at the ECHR on behalf of some miscreant, at massive cost to the taxpayer.
So which of the human rights would have been violated for the ECHR to be interested?
the right to life;
the right to a fair hearing in civil and criminal matters;
the right to respect for private and family life;
freedom of expression;
freedom of thought, conscience and religion;
the right to an effective remedy;
the right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions; and
the right to vote and to stand for election.
the right to life;
the right to a fair hearing in civil and criminal matters;
the right to respect for private and family life;
freedom of expression;
freedom of thought, conscience and religion;
the right to an effective remedy;
the right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions; and
the right to vote and to stand for election.
When the US had prohibition and banned alcohol it played into the criminals hands.
The turned to bootlegging, opening "secret" drinking dens, and spawned a huge criminal network to support this illegal drinking.
Many people at the time turned to drink purely because of its illegal and "dangerous" status. Gangsters like Al Capone and others sprang up on the back of this bootlegging.
The moment you make drink legal then you take the "profit" element out of it for criminals.
Same with drugs, criminals only "push" them because of the huge profits to be made.
Take away the profit and they stop pushing.
Also much "low level" crime such as mugging, burglary, shoplifiting, is to pay for drugs. Take away the high price and you reduce much of this crime.
Nobody WANTS to see drugs legalized, but we MUST take them out the hands of the criminals.
The turned to bootlegging, opening "secret" drinking dens, and spawned a huge criminal network to support this illegal drinking.
Many people at the time turned to drink purely because of its illegal and "dangerous" status. Gangsters like Al Capone and others sprang up on the back of this bootlegging.
The moment you make drink legal then you take the "profit" element out of it for criminals.
Same with drugs, criminals only "push" them because of the huge profits to be made.
Take away the profit and they stop pushing.
Also much "low level" crime such as mugging, burglary, shoplifiting, is to pay for drugs. Take away the high price and you reduce much of this crime.
Nobody WANTS to see drugs legalized, but we MUST take them out the hands of the criminals.
The direct cost of trying to enforce this prohibition on drugs is enormous.
http://
http://
The cost in lives lost is commensurately large - 60,000 estimated dead in the war on drugs in Mexico.
Drugs revenue is also enormous - all of which, since it is illegal, represents untaxed income.Estimates vary, but it must represent billions lost to the revenue services around the globe.
Drugs should be legalised and commercialised in the same way as for alcohol, and with the same restrictions, including age restrictions, penalties for being under the influence whilst driving, operating machinery etc.
Should free up some police time,there should be a reduction in crime, and it would increase revenue to the exchequer. There are still drugs you would probably wish to prohibit - crystal meth, heroin etc, but most of the "recreational" drugs ought to be legalisted, in my view.
http://
http://
The cost in lives lost is commensurately large - 60,000 estimated dead in the war on drugs in Mexico.
Drugs revenue is also enormous - all of which, since it is illegal, represents untaxed income.Estimates vary, but it must represent billions lost to the revenue services around the globe.
Drugs should be legalised and commercialised in the same way as for alcohol, and with the same restrictions, including age restrictions, penalties for being under the influence whilst driving, operating machinery etc.
Should free up some police time,there should be a reduction in crime, and it would increase revenue to the exchequer. There are still drugs you would probably wish to prohibit - crystal meth, heroin etc, but most of the "recreational" drugs ought to be legalisted, in my view.
@Sandy - Do you have any figures to support that, Sandy?If you are talking about the US experience of prohibition, there was a marked decrease in the reported alcohol-related deaths during the early years of prohibition in the US (1920-1933), but that change did not last long, climbing back rapidly to nearly match pre-prohibition levels in the mid-1920s.
It was also reported that,again in the early years of prohibition at least, some doctors were reluctant to ascribe death due to alcohol on the death certificate, so the nationally reported figures were likely lower than the actual rate of alcohol-related deaths, although by what margin is unclear.
By most objective measures, prohibition achieved very little except to line the pockets of gangsters.
http://
http://
It was also reported that,again in the early years of prohibition at least, some doctors were reluctant to ascribe death due to alcohol on the death certificate, so the nationally reported figures were likely lower than the actual rate of alcohol-related deaths, although by what margin is unclear.
By most objective measures, prohibition achieved very little except to line the pockets of gangsters.
http://
http://
