What Is This Man On . . .?

[sir.prize]

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg backs calls for a royal commission to consider decriminalising illegal drugs . . .

[NOX]

There is already legislation preventing people from driving whilst drunk or under the influence of drugs for those that are worried about that.

[ChuckFickens]

Not sure why anyone would think the ECHR would be relevant to this at all.

[sandyRoe]

These proposals don't go far enough, in my opinion. If the drug trade was put into the hands of companies with a proven record of supplying similar products, the drink trade and tobacco firms come to mind, the Treasury could tap into an entirely new source of revenue.

[jake-the-peg]

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

[ChillDoubt]

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.

[ChuckFickens]

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.

[jno]

I agree with... um, Old_Geezer.

[VHG]

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.

[LazyGun]

The direct cost of trying to enforce this prohibition on drugs is enormous.
http://www.drugsense.org/cms/wodclock
http://www.forbes.com/sites/artcarden/2012/04/19/lets-be-blunt-its-time-to-end-the-drug-war/

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.

[Brinjal]

I agree. egalise rugs. people have choices. if they were decriminalised it would redue the price therefore crime such as robbries muggings etc would be reduced.

[ChuckFickens]

rugs should definitely be legalised :)

[jno]

ah, egal ise ChuckFickens strikes again

[sandyRoe]

During prohibition the number of deaths from alcohol related diseases dropped significantly.

[LazyGun]

@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://druglibrary.org/prohibitionresults1.htm
http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/history/e1920/chicagodeaths.htm

[Brinjal]

some rugs that is. not the ones some men put on their heads to cover baldness they should be criminalised.