Quizzes & Puzzles55 mins ago
The War On Drugs - Sir Richard Branson...
Wasn't sure where to post this, but 'news' seems kind of relevant.
Sir Richard Branson thinks the 60 year war on drugs, which has been "a complete failure", should end.
He is of the opinion that people with drug problems should not be sent to prison, but should be sent to treatment centres and be helped, allowing them to become valuable members of society.
How can it "end" though, there will always be the criminals who supply these drugs, and you can't "treat" absolutely everyone. Not everyone wants to be helped.
As a side note, RB is either developing Parkinsons, or has a serious amphetamine problem :P
Sir Richard Branson thinks the 60 year war on drugs, which has been "a complete failure", should end.
He is of the opinion that people with drug problems should not be sent to prison, but should be sent to treatment centres and be helped, allowing them to become valuable members of society.
How can it "end" though, there will always be the criminals who supply these drugs, and you can't "treat" absolutely everyone. Not everyone wants to be helped.
As a side note, RB is either developing Parkinsons, or has a serious amphetamine problem :P
Answers
There are lots of issues around legalising drugs. When you take an objective look at the cost of prohibition of drugs, the cost beggars belief- it soars into the trillions of dollars globally, both in terms of cost of policing, the cost of crimes, both social and in revenue terms, associated with feeding the habit, and the health costs commensurate with...
16:25 Fri 11th Oct 2013
-- answer removed --
//How can it "end" though, there will always be the criminals who supply these drugs//
that is kind of the entire point
If supply is legal and regulated there won't be criminals supplying drugs
To some extent that already hapened with Methadone centres
There is also a difference between legalisation and decriminalisation
We don't send alcoholics to prison unless they've committed a seperate offence why do it with drug addicts
that is kind of the entire point
If supply is legal and regulated there won't be criminals supplying drugs
To some extent that already hapened with Methadone centres
There is also a difference between legalisation and decriminalisation
We don't send alcoholics to prison unless they've committed a seperate offence why do it with drug addicts
I disagree, partly.
I don't think that even if supply was legal, it would eradicate *all* criminals supplying drugs.
Like when they set up that 'safe' centre in Brighton, was it for heroin addicts?, some people would still choose to go down the other road, rather than go do it legally and 'safely'.
I'm sorry, I know what I'm trying to say, but finding it difficult to write the right words :-/
I don't think that even if supply was legal, it would eradicate *all* criminals supplying drugs.
Like when they set up that 'safe' centre in Brighton, was it for heroin addicts?, some people would still choose to go down the other road, rather than go do it legally and 'safely'.
I'm sorry, I know what I'm trying to say, but finding it difficult to write the right words :-/
I agree you still have an illegal smuggling of alcohol and tobacco and an illegal sale to minors.
But it drives a coach and horses through the criminal business model if they are generally available.
If you lose over 90% of your market you're going to find another business to get into.
Now that has other implications and if you decriminalised illegal drugs you'd probably see a good fall in burglaries and thefts of people stealing for the habit (providing price is no longer a major issue)
But you'd probably see a spike in inter-criminal violence as drug criminals try to move in on areas like prostitution as the bottom drops out of their market.
You'd probably also see a lot of smuggling as people try to smuggle them out of the country to where they are still illegal.
So there are a number of unforseen consequences and complications - there are no easy answers
But it is clear that decades of prohibition are only taking up expensive gaol places and lining the pockets of criminals
A famous definition of insanity is doing the same thing hoping for a different outcome
By that definition our drugs policy is clearly insane
But it drives a coach and horses through the criminal business model if they are generally available.
If you lose over 90% of your market you're going to find another business to get into.
Now that has other implications and if you decriminalised illegal drugs you'd probably see a good fall in burglaries and thefts of people stealing for the habit (providing price is no longer a major issue)
But you'd probably see a spike in inter-criminal violence as drug criminals try to move in on areas like prostitution as the bottom drops out of their market.
You'd probably also see a lot of smuggling as people try to smuggle them out of the country to where they are still illegal.
So there are a number of unforseen consequences and complications - there are no easy answers
But it is clear that decades of prohibition are only taking up expensive gaol places and lining the pockets of criminals
A famous definition of insanity is doing the same thing hoping for a different outcome
By that definition our drugs policy is clearly insane
And if drugs which are addictive were freely available we'd have a lot more addicts, all eager to get one more fix, and prepared to steal and cheat to get it, or the money for it. It's bad enough with alcohol; I am sure I would have been driven to steal a bottle, or the money to pay for it, if I was still a practising alcoholic and hadn't got the money. As it was, I had the money.
I don't think dangerous substances should be made legal because of criminals. It isn't illegal to be an addict, but it is to supply it. We are making it more and more difficult for smokers, but decriminalising hard drugs? I really can't see how it would help. And if drugs are more readily available, they would be more competitive pricing. I'm sure it would lead to more usage and therefore more crime. Even if cannabis, for example, is regulated and unadulterated, it still wouldn't be "safe".
Well yeah, that was my thinking. I get what Jake is saying, but I can't help but think if we gave up the war against drugs then, like alcohol, drugs would be so readily 'available' that we'd be a nation full of drug addicts. Britain already has a huge problem when it comes to booze and what it costs the NHS.
I just don't know what Richard Brandson is suggesting, as he doesn't really specify.
I just don't know what Richard Brandson is suggesting, as he doesn't really specify.
There are lots of issues around legalising drugs.
When you take an objective look at the cost of prohibition of drugs, the cost beggars belief- it soars into the trillions of dollars globally, both in terms of cost of policing, the cost of crimes, both social and in revenue terms, associated with feeding the habit, and the health costs commensurate with treating addicts buying, for instance, heroin adulterated with,say, cement.
And I am not sure that anyone, looking at the current pattern of drug use around the globe, could say the war has been won. So we are faced with more of the same; Vicious gangfights between those criminals seeking to control drug territories; lost revenue because non of this commerce is taxable, tremendous drain on policing resources, a drain of health resources, and an ongoing cost to the public.
The look at those drugs considered legal - Alcohol and Nicotine. Both addictive, both poisonous, both damaging to health, either directly or indirectly. So compare and contrast. For me, legalising all the recreational drugs except say Crack and Heroin would help in many ways.
It would mean the products could be manufactured and produced under licence, guaranteeing quality. It could be sold at prices that would drive criminals out the marketplace, reducing the need for as much crime to feed your habit and contributing money to the exchequer, which in turn could support better care and treatment for drug addiction.
International normalisation of things like cocaine, for instance, could turn that into a cash crop for some very poor countries, again raising living standards in those countries.
I know people are worried that legalising drugs would result in a huge surge in users, but I am not sure about the logic of that; Even were drugs legally available tomorrow, for instance, I would not take them - nor would most of the people I have spoken to about this. And the fact that they are currently illegal does not seem to deter those wishing to take drugs anyway.
So, pragmatically speaking, I think legalising the whole thing would offer more benefits that harm overall.
It would be at odds with a Government and a Health policy geared towards reducing consumption of nicotine and alcohol though,I accept that.
Portugal are trying something along these lines, as a kind of social experiment, and the last I had heard was that drug-associated crime was down, but I have not seen anything recently about the results they have seen.
When you take an objective look at the cost of prohibition of drugs, the cost beggars belief- it soars into the trillions of dollars globally, both in terms of cost of policing, the cost of crimes, both social and in revenue terms, associated with feeding the habit, and the health costs commensurate with treating addicts buying, for instance, heroin adulterated with,say, cement.
And I am not sure that anyone, looking at the current pattern of drug use around the globe, could say the war has been won. So we are faced with more of the same; Vicious gangfights between those criminals seeking to control drug territories; lost revenue because non of this commerce is taxable, tremendous drain on policing resources, a drain of health resources, and an ongoing cost to the public.
The look at those drugs considered legal - Alcohol and Nicotine. Both addictive, both poisonous, both damaging to health, either directly or indirectly. So compare and contrast. For me, legalising all the recreational drugs except say Crack and Heroin would help in many ways.
It would mean the products could be manufactured and produced under licence, guaranteeing quality. It could be sold at prices that would drive criminals out the marketplace, reducing the need for as much crime to feed your habit and contributing money to the exchequer, which in turn could support better care and treatment for drug addiction.
International normalisation of things like cocaine, for instance, could turn that into a cash crop for some very poor countries, again raising living standards in those countries.
I know people are worried that legalising drugs would result in a huge surge in users, but I am not sure about the logic of that; Even were drugs legally available tomorrow, for instance, I would not take them - nor would most of the people I have spoken to about this. And the fact that they are currently illegal does not seem to deter those wishing to take drugs anyway.
So, pragmatically speaking, I think legalising the whole thing would offer more benefits that harm overall.
It would be at odds with a Government and a Health policy geared towards reducing consumption of nicotine and alcohol though,I accept that.
Portugal are trying something along these lines, as a kind of social experiment, and the last I had heard was that drug-associated crime was down, but I have not seen anything recently about the results they have seen.
Excellent post LG, and definitely food for thought.
I think I would worry about the future generation if drugs were to be legalised.
Sure, you and I (and the majority of people past a certain age) would have no intention of starting up a drug habit, but what about kids? If drugs became as freely available as tobacco and alcohol, I do believe we would have yet another 'problem' on our hands.
I think I would worry about the future generation if drugs were to be legalised.
Sure, you and I (and the majority of people past a certain age) would have no intention of starting up a drug habit, but what about kids? If drugs became as freely available as tobacco and alcohol, I do believe we would have yet another 'problem' on our hands.
Lazygun,
//When you take an objective look at the cost of prohibition of drugs, the cost beggars belief- it soars into the trillions of dollars globally, both in terms of cost of policing, the cost of crimes, both social and in revenue terms, associated with feeding the habit, and the health costs commensurate with treating addicts buying, for instance, heroin adulterated with,say, cement. //
these costs would still apply if the drugs were legal, and perhaps would be more widespread, too. I can't see it would save money. And i would say lives are more important than money, anyway.
//When you take an objective look at the cost of prohibition of drugs, the cost beggars belief- it soars into the trillions of dollars globally, both in terms of cost of policing, the cost of crimes, both social and in revenue terms, associated with feeding the habit, and the health costs commensurate with treating addicts buying, for instance, heroin adulterated with,say, cement. //
these costs would still apply if the drugs were legal, and perhaps would be more widespread, too. I can't see it would save money. And i would say lives are more important than money, anyway.
@Baby Sham - Its an unknown, for sure, and I can see why people might have a concern about it. Evidence is what is required, and thats why whats happening in Portugal is so interesting.
But thinking about legal drugs - I accept that virtually everyone probably uses alcohol to varying degrees; But the same could be said for Ecstasy, for instance.
And even though smoking is legal after 16, only 20% of adults smoke nowadays, because they are well aware of the health risks.
I am aware of the dissonance between legalising what is currently illegal when you are encouraging people to give up legal drugs, but even so it still seems a better and more pragmatic solution
But thinking about legal drugs - I accept that virtually everyone probably uses alcohol to varying degrees; But the same could be said for Ecstasy, for instance.
And even though smoking is legal after 16, only 20% of adults smoke nowadays, because they are well aware of the health risks.
I am aware of the dissonance between legalising what is currently illegal when you are encouraging people to give up legal drugs, but even so it still seems a better and more pragmatic solution
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles94 mins ago
Strands#265 Did You Hear That?
Quizzes & Puzzles125 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles130 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles239 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.