Tell us how this different approach is going to work, how the drugs will be administered/controlled. Tell us whether any legislation will apply to people declaring themselves as drug dependent within a short specified period of legislation or whether people not drug reliant will be able to join if and when they become reliant. Then tell us how, under this grand scheme, someone not drug reliant could become drug reliant in the absence of illegal drugs....or do the drop into their GP and say, "I've decided to become addicted?"
No matter what there will always be illegal drug takers and illegal drugs that will never stop and can never be stopped as they have always been around. The way forward is to keep a open mind and look round how other counties do things and you can use a bits of thier ideas to make your own system work. True addicts find a why of getting a hit off legal drugs not just illegal drugs, and people who do use drugs dont fit into 1 cap fits all system, you would be surprised at the number of people that are addicts to legal drugs either from GPs or over the counter drugs and this group are not what most people would class as normal drug takers.
I'm in favour of a no holds barred approach to drug crime.
Fine in theory (well, not really, but let's go along with that for a second), but in practice all that happens is that you create a black market.
You don't stop people taking drugs by punishing them. It has been shown again and again and again and again and again yet still people persist with the simplistic notion that if we simply have a no tolerance policy and condemn those taking drugs that this will suddenly solve all the problems.
It doesn't work. It's never worked. All that happens is that the addicts move further to the margins of society and get forced into some very criminal behaviour in order to feed their habits.
The hand-wringing NIMBY's get to say "oh, well it's their own fault" as they are not personally affected and the whole idea of a big society gets shown up for the lie it is.
Better to have it all out in the open where you can actually assess and try to minimise the problems rather than taking the moral high ground which helps no-one other than making yourself feel superior to those affected. Better to cut out the drug barons and those cutting the drugs with cheap poisonous materials.
That is, if people actually want to minimise the drug problem and deal with addicts in a compassionate way rather than simply look down at them and pretend they don't exist.
"A no holds barred approach to drug crime".......such a simplistic attitude. Newsflash - you are always going to have addicts in society. You either accept that and deal with the problems up front or you marginalise them and hope they go away. Which attitude do you think is best for them? Which results in less drug related crime? Less deaths?
No matter what there will always be illegal drug takers and illegal drugs that will never stop and can never be stopped as they have always been around. The way forward is to keep a open mind and look round how other counties do things and you can use a bits of thier ideas to make your own system work. True addicts find a why of getting a hit off legal drugs not just illegal drugs, and people who do use drugs dont fit into 1 cap fits all system, you would be surprised at the number of people that are addicts to legal drugs either from GPs or over the counter drugs and this group are not what most people would class as normal drug takers.
So legalising drugs won't reduce drug taking and there will continue to be an illegal drugs trade.
Fine in theory (well, not really, but let's go along with that for a second), but in practice all that happens is that you create a black market.
You don't stop people taking drugs by punishing them. It has been shown again and again and again and again and again yet still people persist with the simplistic notion that if we simply have a no tolerance policy and condemn those taking drugs that this will suddenly solve all the problems.
It doesn't work. It's never worked. All that happens is that the addicts move further to the margins of society and get forced into some very criminal behaviour in order to feed their habits.
The hand-wringing NIMBY's get to say "oh, well it's their own fault" as they are not personally affected and the whole idea of a big society gets shown up for the lie it is.
Better to have it all out in the open where you can actually assess and try to minimise the problems rather than taking the moral high ground which helps no-one other than making yourself feel superior to those affected. Better to cut out the drug barons and those cutting the drugs with cheap poisonous materials.
That is, if people actually want to minimise the drug problem and deal with addicts in a compassionate way rather than simply look down at them and pretend they don't exist.
"A no holds barred approach to drug crime".......such a simplistic attitude. Newsflash - you are always going to have addicts in society. You either accept that and deal with the problems up front or you marginalise them and hope they go away. Which attitude do you think is best for them? Which results in less drug related crime? Less deaths?
Apologies, I'll reword my post. Would you care to answer my post where I asked tim how the legalization would work.
So legalising drugs won't reduce drug taking and there will continue to be an illegal drugs trade.
It can reduce drug taking yes, well why would you think illegal drugs trade would vanish, anything that is legal always as a illegal side to it, but you are alot more in control of thing, were at the minute you have no control because something is illegal does not mean you are in control of it or can stamp it out. Look at things now illegal drugs are cheaper than a packet of ****, what control has the state got over all these drugs non, just a label they are illegal people are breaking the law, but no control over the way things are.
Apologies, I'll reword my post. Would you care to answer my post where I asked tim how the legalization would work.
No need for apologies. I just don't like the dismissive attitude to drugs or what I would call the head-in-the-sand attitude and took your post as representative of that (since it used similar rhetoric). So I took the opportunity to attack that because I see it as dangerous. On reflection, I'm sure you have a far more nuanced opinion rather than that displayed in that post, but I guess you can see why I responded in that way.
My simple belief is that society deals better with issues when it (firstly) admits that they are an issue, and (secondly) treats that issue as their problem rather than just a pitfall that "bad" or "weak" people might fall into...and hell mend them.
Okay....I'll have a go at legalization. I'm not a legislator but since I chastised you for your short response then I suppose I owe a more in-depth proposed system that people can tear holes in.
1) State authority. Whatever you put in your body is your concern but this is no shield against prosecution for any crime. If you drive on drugs, or commit a crime, or do anything else then you feel the full weight of the law.
2) Prosecutions. If you are convicted of crimes (not serious) where drugs are an issue then you serve your sentence in a separate facility that combines the attributes of a prison with that of a rehabilitation facility. The emphasis should be on education and breaking the psychological dependency on the drug (although legal now, you have been convicted of a crime involving that drug so the state is entitled to try to break that cycle and talk therapy and life training is probably more effective than simple incarceration).
3) Production. Domestic based. State production of harder drugs. Controlled from initial production right down to sale so "safer" drugs with no materials cut into them at various steps - resulting in a large proportion of deaths currently.
4) Sale. By pharmacy type of outlet for softer drugs. In specialised facility for harder drugs. Allows state to build up accurate figures of drug users and better assess the scale of the issue. Taxed as other currently legal drugs are (highly) and treated in a similar way (support for addicts), age restrictions, driving restrictions, don't do it around kids.
5) Transparency. By this I mean do we live in a society where drug taking is visible. I actually prefer the Swiss system where there are facilities for lots of reasons. If someone overdoses you can have a doctor on hand. So I would restrict drug consumption to either in your own home (softer) or at specialised facility (harder - like heroin or crack). This gets addicts off the streets and into facilities where they can be assessed and treated.
I would go for something like that and try to shift the emphasis to drug addicts being ill. It would cost money but it would also raise money. Which would be greater - I'm not sure. As I see it the major benefits are in bringing together the state and the actual addicts. As a society you'd have a far greater understanding of the scale of the problem.
Okay, I'm sure there are holes and tweaks needed, but even so I think the above would be better than the current system. Legalization (with cannabis and softer drugs treated as legal controlled substances - similar to alcohol and nicotine, and harder drugs treated legal controlled substances only available through the state which brings with it the support, treatment and assessment designed to break that person's addiction but done in a compassionate way rather than through the current penal system where people come out the jails as smack addicts).
And, yes, some will still choose to inject themselves with drugs even after all the support and education available but I think you have to accept that drug addicts will always be around. They always have been in one form or another - whether in Amsterdam or Bangkok, modern times, Victorian times, or ancient Rome. But dealing with them up close rather than marginalising them is, in my opinion, smarter and more honest.
I have and it explained nothing of what I asked, why do you think it does?
Don't you know what they mean?
This is how it works, I ask a question about something you said because I don't understand what YOU meant in the context in which you use them,
I certainly understand what the word "drugs" means to me, I wasn't asking myself to explain what I mean by the word, as I already know, so asking myself would have been a bit pointless.
and likewise with the term "zero tolerance" again it is probably just something you have heard and think it sounds a bit tough, but without the actual details of what you mean I am unable to discuss it further with you, perhaps that's why you are being so vauge?
"zero tolerance" is utterly meaningless unless I know what you think constitutes a "drug crime" and what the 'ultimate price' is,
would you, for example, condone summary execution on the spot via a bullet in the brain if one is caught smoking a spliff? Because if not, then anything less would indeed be 'some' tolerance and not 'zero'.
So legalising drugs won't reduce drug taking and there will continue to be an illegal drugs trade.
Dear God, everything has to be either on or off, doesn't it? there is HUGE amounts of evidence easily available for those who would like to inform themselves of some of the facts around the use of recreational drugs, and the ways of dealing with them,
I mean reams and reams of it, some if it from countries which have either de-criminalised some or all drug use, and others who have legalised some or all recreational drug use,
and the things they have in common are a significant reduction in the number of drug related deaths, a marked lowering in the number of HIV cases, a significant reduction in crime or robbery, shop lifting and burglary, NO significant increase in the numbers of drug users, a huge reduction in the numbers of illegal dealers, massive savings of police time and resources, as well as a huge decrease to the burden on the taxpayer, not to mention in some states of the USA an actual significant INCREASE in the money coming in from tax from sales,
As well as a large increase in jobs available in the shops that sell the stuff the farms the grow it, and the market that sells associated products and paraphernalia.
ALL this information is out there, no one needs to be quite so ill informed about the topic to the point where they leave themselves open to being insulted by some of the, shall we say, less polite posters?
As far as headshops are concerned are you talking just about legal highs. Things they are ostensibly selling not for human consumption, that in reality irresponsible or callous shops are knowingly selling to people for them to abuse despite them being unsafe and resulting in many deaths each year. You may as well be arguing that shops selling glue, gases and aerosols should be able to market them to people as things to abuse and give advice on how to best use them, despite doing so being dangerous. The law needs changing to stop shops selling legal highs to people to abuse not changed to give them respectablity, they are scum of the earth no better than dealers in dangerous illegal drugs.
No, I'm not. Clearly you don't understand the argument at all.
Head-shops sell paraphernalia for legal and illegal drugs. They should be able to give safety advice on the use of both, but can't - leaving users to fend for themselves.
Head-shops should be more like recreational 'pharmacies' where you can obtain advice and information. It'd prevent a lot of harm coming to people.
Dear God, everything has to be either on or off, doesn't it? there is HUGE amounts of evidence easily available for those who would like to inform themselves of some of the facts around the use of recreational drugs, and the ways of dealing with them,
I mean reams and reams of it, some if it from countries which have either de-criminalised some or all drug use, and others who have legalised some or all recreational drug use,
and the things they have in common are a significant reduction in the number of drug related deaths, a marked lowering in the number of HIV cases, a significant reduction in crime or robbery, shop lifting and burglary, NO significant increase in the numbers of drug users, a huge reduction in the numbers of illegal dealers, massive savings of police time and resources, as well as a huge decrease to the burden on the taxpayer, not to mention in some states of the USA an actual significant INCREASE in the money coming in from tax from sales,
As well as a large increase in jobs available in the shops that sell the stuff the farms the grow it, and the market that sells associated products and paraphernalia.
ALL this information is out there, no one needs to be quite so ill informed about the topic to the point where they leave themselves open to being insulted by some of the, shall we say, less polite posters?
check Swizerland who have herion parks in major cities, check Portugal, and check spain that now has monitor not only the north african border but its own with Portugal.
Dear God, everything has to be either on or off, doesn't it? there is HUGE amounts of evidence easily available for those who would like to inform themselves of some of the facts around the use of recreational drugs, and the ways of dealing with them,
I mean reams and reams of it, some if it from countries which have either de-criminalised some or all drug use, and others who have legalised some or all recreational drug use,
and the things they have in common are a significant reduction in the number of drug related deaths, a marked lowering in the number of HIV cases, a significant reduction in crime or robbery, shop lifting and burglary, NO significant increase in the numbers of drug users, a huge reduction in the numbers of illegal dealers, massive savings of police time and resources, as well as a huge decrease to the burden on the taxpayer, not to mention in some states of the USA an actual significant INCREASE in the money coming in from tax from sales,
As well as a large increase in jobs available in the shops that sell the stuff the farms the grow it, and the market that sells associated products and paraphernalia.
ALL this information is out there, no one needs to be quite so ill informed about the topic to the point where they leave themselves open to being insulted by some of the, shall we say, less polite posters?
Thing is people seem to think that if a country has decriminalised possession of small quanties of of an illegal drug for personal use that they have gone soft on durgs or even removed all sanctions rather than replaced criminal sanctions with civil sanctions.
Take Portugal it decriminalised possession of small quanities for personal use in 2001 and that it is claimed by many has resulted in fewer drug caused deaths, and even a drop in the number of drug users.
But in Portugal while it is nolonger criminal possession of small quanities for personal use still results in sanctions, lots of sanctions.
In Portugal possession of drugs for personal results in
Confiscation of the drugs.
Summons and Interview before a commission for the dissuasion of drug addiction. A commission made up of a social worker, a psychiatrist and a attorney.
Fine based on multiple of Portugals minimum wage.
Suspension of all proffesional licences involving any work where they are responsible for others for example taxi driver to doctor.
Withdraw of the right to possess dangerous items requiring a licence, for example a gun.
Ban on visting places for example night clubs, dance clubs, etc;
Ban on associating with specified other people, for example known associates who are drug users.
Foreign travel ban.
Confiscation of personal possessions
Cessation of subsidies or allowance that a person recieves from a public agencies, in other words loss of all state welfare benefits
Community service
Requirement to report periodically to the committee
If deemed addicted to drugs, admitted to a drug rehab including residentail drug rehab. If comply some of the above sanctions maybe suspended, if fail to comply more sanctions so in effect sanctions used to coerce compliance.
If deemed not addicted to drugs, and fails to comply with conditions, more fines and sanctions can be imposed, in fines and other sanctions used to coerce compliance.
Compare the above to the UK system for possession of Cannabis for personal use
UK current sanctions for possession of small quanities of cannabis for personal use.
1st time - issued with a cannabis warning a spoken warning given by a police officer
2nd time - maybe issued with a Penalty Notice for Disorder fine of £90.
3rd time - may consider further action. This could include release without charge, caution, conditional caution or prosecution.
4th time - in theory should be arrested, possible prosecution.
If prosecuted and found guilty
Minimum punishment discharged no punishment.
Starting point punishment a Band B fine, 75-125% of the offenders weekly income.
Maximum punishment 26 weeks in custody you will be released when you have served half your sentence so 13 weeks in prison, although I guess you might be on tag and serving the rest of the sentence in the community.
Now comparing the two sanctions regimes who has the most rigorous stringent and servere sanctions regime the UK or Portugal. Because to me it looks like Portugal.
every time someone gets busted there`s several in line to take their place. small time smack and crack dealers grass each other up all the time, there`s plenty more where they came from. many, many addicts are in fact made in prison.
Not in the slightest. Government tends to prefer burying heads in arses on the subject of failed drug laws.
I agree. Trying to get drug addicts off drugs would be better than just repeatedly locking them up, which would then result in repeatedly costing the tax payer money unnecessarily.
I agree. Trying to get drug addicts off drugs would be better than just repeatedly locking them up, which would then result in repeatedly costing the tax payer money unnecessarily.
The issue of drugs needs to be made an issue of health instead of justice rather urgently. All the credible evidence shows that the war on drugs has been a multi billion dollar failure.
I agree. Trying to get drug addicts off drugs would be better than just repeatedly locking them up, which would then result in repeatedly costing the tax payer money unnecessarily.
Seems so many people dont want to try a differant way, just want to stick to the system that does not work.
The issue of drugs needs to be made an issue of health instead of justice rather urgently. All the credible evidence shows that the war on drugs has been a multi billion dollar failure.
The issue of drugs needs to be made an issue of health instead of justice rather urgently. All the credible evidence shows that the war on drugs has been a multi billion dollar failure.
Locking people up for taking drugs has been shown to have failed. All that's happened is the addicts are returning to prison once they have committed the same offence again.....unless a small number of addicts decide that they desperately want to be clean. Money is just being wasted. The war on drugs has been happening for decades and decades now. A different approach needs to be taken because the approach that's currently being taken hasn't worked for YEARS.
Seems so many people dont want to try a differant way, just want to stick to the system that does not work.
Funny thing is people who want possession of small quanities of illegal drugs for personal use derciriminalised often cite the experience of other nations that have done so as evidence of it being effective and an example we should follow. For example the experience in Portugal. Yet when UK politicians proposes measures similiar to what say Portugal uses they oppose those measures. For example in Portugal a drug addict can be told to attend drug rehab with non-complance resulting in loss of all state welfare benefits, in the UK the Coalition suggested maybe drug addicts on welfare could be required to attend drug rehab with non compliance resulting in benefit sanction.
Funny thing is people who want possession of small quanities of illegal drugs for personal use derciriminalised often cite the experience of other nations that have done so as evidence of it being effective and an example we should follow. For example the experience in Portugal. Yet when UK politicians proposes measures similiar to what say Portugal uses they oppose those measures. For example in Portugal a drug addict can be told to attend drug rehab with non-complance resulting in loss of all state welfare benefits, in the UK the Coalition suggested maybe drug addicts on welfare could be required to attend drug rehab with non compliance resulting in benefit sanction.
And what about the ones not on benefits, which is a bigger group why do people always think of drugs and benefits together when the 2 things are not related.
A different approach needs to be taken because the approach that's currently being taken hasn't worked for YEARS.
And yet according to the crime survey results the percentage of the UK population using illegal drugs including the percentage of young people doing so has been falling for years. Over the last decade the percentage of people using illegal drugs has fallen by a third. How are we to see this as evidence current policy does not work and is not working.
And yet according to the crime survey results the percentage of the UK population using illegal drugs including the percentage of young people doing so has been falling for years. Over the last decade the percentage of people using illegal drugs has fallen by a third. How are we to see this as evidence current policy does not work and is not working.
People are more informed than they ever were. This accounts for reduced drug use as well as falling numbers of smokers and heavy drinkers.
And yet according to the crime survey results the percentage of the UK population using illegal drugs including the percentage of young people doing so has been falling for years. Over the last decade the percentage of people using illegal drugs has fallen by a third. How are we to see this as evidence current policy does not work and is not working.
Well any idea how reliable these figures are, because crime figures themselves are not that reliable, because how figures are worked out keeps changing. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...e-falling.htmlCrime figures are likely to rise sharply in the wake of the revelations about police 'fiddling' the data, MPs were warned today.
The UK's statistics watchdog revealed there has been no proper audit of the figures recorded by the police for an astonishing five years.
The experts predict that, when the figures are now thoroughly checked, it will lead to crime once again beginning to rise.
Comments
No matter what there will always be illegal drug takers and illegal drugs that will never stop and can never be stopped as they have always been around. The way forward is to keep a open mind and look round how other counties do things and you can use a bits of thier ideas to make your own system work. True addicts find a why of getting a hit off legal drugs not just illegal drugs, and people who do use drugs dont fit into 1 cap fits all system, you would be surprised at the number of people that are addicts to legal drugs either from GPs or over the counter drugs and this group are not what most people would class as normal drug takers.
Fine in theory (well, not really, but let's go along with that for a second), but in practice all that happens is that you create a black market.
You don't stop people taking drugs by punishing them. It has been shown again and again and again and again and again yet still people persist with the simplistic notion that if we simply have a no tolerance policy and condemn those taking drugs that this will suddenly solve all the problems.
It doesn't work. It's never worked. All that happens is that the addicts move further to the margins of society and get forced into some very criminal behaviour in order to feed their habits.
The hand-wringing NIMBY's get to say "oh, well it's their own fault" as they are not personally affected and the whole idea of a big society gets shown up for the lie it is.
Better to have it all out in the open where you can actually assess and try to minimise the problems rather than taking the moral high ground which helps no-one other than making yourself feel superior to those affected. Better to cut out the drug barons and those cutting the drugs with cheap poisonous materials.
That is, if people actually want to minimise the drug problem and deal with addicts in a compassionate way rather than simply look down at them and pretend they don't exist.
"A no holds barred approach to drug crime".......such a simplistic attitude. Newsflash - you are always going to have addicts in society. You either accept that and deal with the problems up front or you marginalise them and hope they go away. Which attitude do you think is best for them? Which results in less drug related crime? Less deaths?
So legalising drugs won't reduce drug taking and there will continue to be an illegal drugs trade.
Apologies, I'll reword my post. Would you care to answer my post where I asked tim how the legalization would work.
It can reduce drug taking yes, well why would you think illegal drugs trade would vanish, anything that is legal always as a illegal side to it, but you are alot more in control of thing, were at the minute you have no control because something is illegal does not mean you are in control of it or can stamp it out. Look at things now illegal drugs are cheaper than a packet of ****, what control has the state got over all these drugs non, just a label they are illegal people are breaking the law, but no control over the way things are.
No need for apologies. I just don't like the dismissive attitude to drugs or what I would call the head-in-the-sand attitude and took your post as representative of that (since it used similar rhetoric). So I took the opportunity to attack that because I see it as dangerous. On reflection, I'm sure you have a far more nuanced opinion rather than that displayed in that post, but I guess you can see why I responded in that way.
My simple belief is that society deals better with issues when it (firstly) admits that they are an issue, and (secondly) treats that issue as their problem rather than just a pitfall that "bad" or "weak" people might fall into...and hell mend them.
Okay....I'll have a go at legalization. I'm not a legislator but since I chastised you for your short response then I suppose I owe a more in-depth proposed system that people can tear holes in.
1) State authority. Whatever you put in your body is your concern but this is no shield against prosecution for any crime. If you drive on drugs, or commit a crime, or do anything else then you feel the full weight of the law.
2) Prosecutions. If you are convicted of crimes (not serious) where drugs are an issue then you serve your sentence in a separate facility that combines the attributes of a prison with that of a rehabilitation facility. The emphasis should be on education and breaking the psychological dependency on the drug (although legal now, you have been convicted of a crime involving that drug so the state is entitled to try to break that cycle and talk therapy and life training is probably more effective than simple incarceration).
3) Production. Domestic based. State production of harder drugs. Controlled from initial production right down to sale so "safer" drugs with no materials cut into them at various steps - resulting in a large proportion of deaths currently.
4) Sale. By pharmacy type of outlet for softer drugs. In specialised facility for harder drugs. Allows state to build up accurate figures of drug users and better assess the scale of the issue. Taxed as other currently legal drugs are (highly) and treated in a similar way (support for addicts), age restrictions, driving restrictions, don't do it around kids.
5) Transparency. By this I mean do we live in a society where drug taking is visible. I actually prefer the Swiss system where there are facilities for lots of reasons. If someone overdoses you can have a doctor on hand. So I would restrict drug consumption to either in your own home (softer) or at specialised facility (harder - like heroin or crack). This gets addicts off the streets and into facilities where they can be assessed and treated.
I would go for something like that and try to shift the emphasis to drug addicts being ill. It would cost money but it would also raise money. Which would be greater - I'm not sure. As I see it the major benefits are in bringing together the state and the actual addicts. As a society you'd have a far greater understanding of the scale of the problem.
Okay, I'm sure there are holes and tweaks needed, but even so I think the above would be better than the current system. Legalization (with cannabis and softer drugs treated as legal controlled substances - similar to alcohol and nicotine, and harder drugs treated legal controlled substances only available through the state which brings with it the support, treatment and assessment designed to break that person's addiction but done in a compassionate way rather than through the current penal system where people come out the jails as smack addicts).
And, yes, some will still choose to inject themselves with drugs even after all the support and education available but I think you have to accept that drug addicts will always be around. They always have been in one form or another - whether in Amsterdam or Bangkok, modern times, Victorian times, or ancient Rome. But dealing with them up close rather than marginalising them is, in my opinion, smarter and more honest.
I have and it explained nothing of what I asked, why do you think it does?
This is how it works, I ask a question about something you said because I don't understand what YOU meant in the context in which you use them,
I certainly understand what the word "drugs" means to me, I wasn't asking myself to explain what I mean by the word, as I already know, so asking myself would have been a bit pointless.
and likewise with the term "zero tolerance" again it is probably just something you have heard and think it sounds a bit tough, but without the actual details of what you mean I am unable to discuss it further with you, perhaps that's why you are being so vauge?
"zero tolerance" is utterly meaningless unless I know what you think constitutes a "drug crime" and what the 'ultimate price' is,
would you, for example, condone summary execution on the spot via a bullet in the brain if one is caught smoking a spliff? Because if not, then anything less would indeed be 'some' tolerance and not 'zero'.
Dear God, everything has to be either on or off, doesn't it? there is HUGE amounts of evidence easily available for those who would like to inform themselves of some of the facts around the use of recreational drugs, and the ways of dealing with them,
I mean reams and reams of it, some if it from countries which have either de-criminalised some or all drug use, and others who have legalised some or all recreational drug use,
and the things they have in common are a significant reduction in the number of drug related deaths, a marked lowering in the number of HIV cases, a significant reduction in crime or robbery, shop lifting and burglary, NO significant increase in the numbers of drug users, a huge reduction in the numbers of illegal dealers, massive savings of police time and resources, as well as a huge decrease to the burden on the taxpayer, not to mention in some states of the USA an actual significant INCREASE in the money coming in from tax from sales,
As well as a large increase in jobs available in the shops that sell the stuff the farms the grow it, and the market that sells associated products and paraphernalia.
ALL this information is out there, no one needs to be quite so ill informed about the topic to the point where they leave themselves open to being insulted by some of the, shall we say, less polite posters?
No, I'm not. Clearly you don't understand the argument at all.
Head-shops sell paraphernalia for legal and illegal drugs. They should be able to give safety advice on the use of both, but can't - leaving users to fend for themselves.
Head-shops should be more like recreational 'pharmacies' where you can obtain advice and information. It'd prevent a lot of harm coming to people.
Why would that stop me posting?
It wasn't an insult, it was a frank observation because you seemed to so hopelessly misunderstand the situation - be it deliberately or otherwise.
I'm really baffled by you to be honest. You seem to be unable to listen to reason - so, for sure, the argument is lost on you.
check Swizerland who have herion parks in major cities, check Portugal, and check spain that now has monitor not only the north african border but its own with Portugal.
Its not all just about having a toke OHG.
Take Portugal it decriminalised possession of small quanities for personal use in 2001 and that it is claimed by many has resulted in fewer drug caused deaths, and even a drop in the number of drug users.
But in Portugal while it is nolonger criminal possession of small quanities for personal use still results in sanctions, lots of sanctions.
In Portugal possession of drugs for personal results in
Confiscation of the drugs.
Summons and Interview before a commission for the dissuasion of drug addiction. A commission made up of a social worker, a psychiatrist and a attorney.
Fine based on multiple of Portugals minimum wage.
Suspension of all proffesional licences involving any work where they are responsible for others for example taxi driver to doctor.
Withdraw of the right to possess dangerous items requiring a licence, for example a gun.
Ban on visting places for example night clubs, dance clubs, etc;
Ban on associating with specified other people, for example known associates who are drug users.
Foreign travel ban.
Confiscation of personal possessions
Cessation of subsidies or allowance that a person recieves from a public agencies, in other words loss of all state welfare benefits
Community service
Requirement to report periodically to the committee
If deemed addicted to drugs, admitted to a drug rehab including residentail drug rehab. If comply some of the above sanctions maybe suspended, if fail to comply more sanctions so in effect sanctions used to coerce compliance.
If deemed not addicted to drugs, and fails to comply with conditions, more fines and sanctions can be imposed, in fines and other sanctions used to coerce compliance.
Compare the above to the UK system for possession of Cannabis for personal use
UK current sanctions for possession of small quanities of cannabis for personal use.
1st time - issued with a cannabis warning a spoken warning given by a police officer
2nd time - maybe issued with a Penalty Notice for Disorder fine of £90.
3rd time - may consider further action. This could include release without charge, caution, conditional caution or prosecution.
4th time - in theory should be arrested, possible prosecution.
If prosecuted and found guilty
Minimum punishment discharged no punishment.
Starting point punishment a Band B fine, 75-125% of the offenders weekly income.
Maximum punishment 26 weeks in custody you will be released when you have served half your sentence so 13 weeks in prison, although I guess you might be on tag and serving the rest of the sentence in the community.
Now comparing the two sanctions regimes who has the most rigorous stringent and servere sanctions regime the UK or Portugal. Because to me it looks like Portugal.
Not in the slightest. Government tends to prefer burying heads in arses on the subject of failed drug laws.
Only in the short term.People would soon get the message.
Exactly.
The Prison authorities do not make sufficient effort to do it.
A bit of advice for you. This thread is about drugs. It is not about me.
Prison population up, number of staff down The cut in prison staff numbers by 10,000 over the past three years
I agree. Trying to get drug addicts off drugs would be better than just repeatedly locking them up, which would then result in repeatedly costing the tax payer money unnecessarily.
The issue of drugs needs to be made an issue of health instead of justice rather urgently. All the credible evidence shows that the war on drugs has been a multi billion dollar failure.
Seems so many people dont want to try a differant way, just want to stick to the system that does not work.
100% agree with this statement
Locking people up for taking drugs has been shown to have failed. All that's happened is the addicts are returning to prison once they have committed the same offence again.....unless a small number of addicts decide that they desperately want to be clean. Money is just being wasted. The war on drugs has been happening for decades and decades now. A different approach needs to be taken because the approach that's currently being taken hasn't worked for YEARS.
And what about the ones not on benefits, which is a bigger group why do people always think of drugs and benefits together when the 2 things are not related.
People are more informed than they ever were. This accounts for reduced drug use as well as falling numbers of smokers and heavy drinkers.
Well any idea how reliable these figures are, because crime figures themselves are not that reliable, because how figures are worked out keeps changing. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...e-falling.htmlCrime figures are likely to rise sharply in the wake of the revelations about police 'fiddling' the data, MPs were warned today.
The UK's statistics watchdog revealed there has been no proper audit of the figures recorded by the police for an astonishing five years.
The experts predict that, when the figures are now thoroughly checked, it will lead to crime once again beginning to rise.