Our lords and masters have finally discovered the blindingly obvious.
There is “no obvious” link between tough laws and levels of illegal drug use, a government report has found.
Liberal Democrat Home Office minister Norman Baker said the report, comparing the UK with other countries, should end “mindless rhetoric” on drugs policy.
Well, bugger me, whodathunkit? Of course people will take illegal drugs and if they have a mind to, then no amount of penalties will deter them. And, frankly, there should be no penalties in the first place. What people put into their bodies is their concern and not that of the state. If it does them harm, then that is their concern as well.
If liberty is to mean anything it means the freedom to kill oneself with the poison of one’s own choosing. The state, frankly, has no business assuming dominion over our bodies.
Yes, there was a piece in the DT today about it. Quite a lively discussion in the comments, but the general consensus seemed to be that the ‘war on drugs’ is, and always has been a complete failure, and ridiculously costly both socially and financially.
The problem, as always, is what the Thais call ‘face’. The Powers That Be cannot bring themselves to admit that they have been utterly and totally wrong to prosecute this ‘war’ for the past 75 or so years, so they trot out all the trite soundbites about the cheeldren, social costs etc as justification.
The other, no less significant, aspect to all this is of course, the money. There are vast sums tied up in waging a ‘war on drugs’. How many people are involved? Hundreds of thousands, I’d imagine. From the front-line police and customs to all the peripheral support industries like prisons, specialist equipment suppliers, dog trainers, helicopters and pilots, fast boats and captains etc etc etc; the list is long. And all these people depend for their livelihoods on the continuing prohibition of drugs.
I would imagine that there is at least as much money being made by the ‘war on drugs’ as there is being made by the growers, processors, smugglers and dealers of the drugs themselves. That money tap will be difficult, if not impossible to turn off.
It would be interesting to compare drug use in Portugal – who have decriminalised (2011, I think) – with GB. With over 50% youth unemployment and a failing economy, Portuguese citizens would have more reason to turn to drugs, yet I don’t think that is the case.
Don’t forget the army of charity and support workers
The only question is at what age do you want the state to sell your child or grandchild their first shot of heroin or Crystal meth, because most of the pro-legalisation arguments envisage Nanny as the dealer of choice.
You only need to do your job right as a parent to make sure your kids never want to dabble in that rubbish. If they do, it doesn’t matter who is selling it, they will still buy it.
The only difference is, if nanny is doing the selling rather than a drug gang, your kid is less likely to be caught up in a drive by shooting because of some turf war.
You beat me to it. The other thing to consider is that Nanny won’t cut your fix with talcum powder, brick dust or any other substances.
The only question is at what age do you want the state to sell your child or grandchild their first shot of heroin or Crystal meth…
We have age limits on buying alcohol and tobacco which seem to work pretty well. I think it would be safe to assume that the government, were it to start controlling the legal sale of drugs, would not acquiesce to the idea of selling to 14 year olds. And as Bucko says, the responsibility for steering your kids in the right direction lies with you, the parent. For a young person, understanding the realities is the key to making the right decisions.
I was brought up in the 50s being indoctrinated about the terrible evils of drugs. Drugs. They were all lumped together under the same umbrella. And they were ALL terribly evil. Naturally for me, as a rebellious kid, that merely spiked my interest, so my late teens and early twenties were spent in a blur of industrial quantities of a plethora of illicit substances. Which I fortunately came through relatively unscathed. When it came to dealing with my own kids (I have four, ranging now from 42 down to 27, two boys and two girls) I was completely honest with them. They all know my history with drugs, and my opinion (and experiences) of the various different types. They have all experimented to a degree, mostly with pot, and they talk to me freely about what they have done. The oldest son now smokes cigarettes and drinks moderately and smokes the occasional spliff. He’s a wine expert for one of the big Australian wineries. The next boy down doesn’t now smoke (anything) or drink alcohol. He’s a manager with a glass manufacturer. My eldest daughter (she was the wild one) got quite into drugs in her late teens, but now just smokes the occasional cigarette and drinks the odd glass of wine. She’s a hairdresser and manages a salon for one of the most prestigious chains in the UK. The youngest daughter barely flirted with dope and now doesn’t smoke and rarely drinks alcohol. She’s currently doing her Master’s degree in International law and Human Rights law (Gawd! We have some lively discussions! 😈 ).
I’m writing all this not because I’m boasting (although I am proud of what they have achieved and how well they manage their lives), but to illustrate how knowledge of the actual FACTS (as opposed to the puritan propaganda) enables kids to know how best to proceed. The idea that frightening them with exaggerated doomsday scenarios will stop them doing anything is a fantasy. Kids want to be informed, and inevitably they will want to experiment. If they can experiment from a standpoint of knowledge, they are much less likely to go over the top or come to any harm. So my opinion is that there should be no prohibition of drugs of any sort, but with the proviso that people (kids) are educated about the reality of the substances.
So moving from a ‘war on drugs’ to a war ‘for the right of the government to monopolise the importation, distribution and retail of drugs’ is an improvement?
Many parents educate their kids against heroin. What rational parent wouldn’t? But many parents of smackheads fail. And there’s plenty of kids already with smackhead parents.
The Chinese government fought the Opium War to prevent the UK govt from flooding their country with opiates in about 1847. You want to allow the same clique to try it again on your home turf?
This is permitted hedonism as a means of political control, Soma a la Brave New World. Not good. Not good at all.
Nice little strawman you’ve built there – because no one has said anything even remotely like what you are suggesting.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12005824
Asked where people might buy cocaine on a Saturday night, he replied: “Maybe at a chemist”.
Yup, fine. Or maybe the equivalent of a tobacconist. So what?
Why do people assume that if drugs were legalized (I’m not sure what the full scope of legalization would be, but I assume people mean the procurement/use of currently illegal substances) that supplies would become – for want of a better word – clean? It does appear to be a widely held assumption.
For the record, I take the view that if you want to snort, sniff, inject or via a supository take mind altering substances that its none of my business but you do deserve everything you get (ditto eating too much which I am certainly guilty of).
Just curious.
Er, because it’s in the interests of legitimate businesses not to injure or kill their clientèle. The bottle of wine you buy at the supermarket or offy isn’t watered down or laced with noxious substances. So, yeah, a legitimate trade would behave in the same way as other legitimate businesses.
Indeed
I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised to find that at least half of the deaths & injuries “caused by drugs” turned out to be the effects of poisoning from adultereants & mixes put in to the pure drugs by unscrupulous dealers.
Leagalis / regulate / tax it – sell at pharmacies & watch the crime rate drop like a stone