[UK] Decriminalise possession - Police chiefs, Celebrities, Politicians

kraggy

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/jun/02/drugs-drugspolicy

Agree with most of it but worried about heroin, crystal meth, crack etc being decriminalised.

Certainly, giving someone a criminal record for possessing a pill or a joint is indefensible,

However, I wonder how they reckon they will take the power out of criminals hands regarding drugs such as heroin and crystal meth? Set up legal shops to sell such drugs?

Taking the power away from gangs is one of the reasons cited in their argument. But how do you do that without permitting the sale of hard drugs in street shops?

Killer Pigeon

For Crystal Meth/ Heroine/ etc.. I think that it should only be prescribed by some medical professional in cases of extreme addiction. Obviously stuff like that shouldn't be sold on the streets or in the special stores. I think that legalising possession (in small qualities) of Crystal Meth/ Heroine/ etc.. that has been prescribed by a medical professional is OK.

I also think that the whole official "class of drugs" categorisation needs to be reviewed.

Chuck Stone

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

For Crystal Meth/ Heroine/ etc.. I think that it should only be prescribed by some medical professional in cases of extreme addiction

This doen't make sense.

They're talking about decriminalising possesion not legalising drugs - where would medical professional get the drugs? How would they tell who was an addict and who was getting them and selling them to addicts? It just wouldn't be workable.

Obviously stuff like that shouldn't be sold on the streets

Yes.

or in the special stores.

No.

Special stores is exactly where it should be sold from if drugs were legalised - like offy's but with drugs.

I think that legalising possession (in small qualities) of Crystal Meth/ Heroine/ etc.. that has been prescribed by a medical professional is OK.

This doesn't make sense^^. If we're legalising possesion then dealing would remain illegal so medical professionals would be dealing drugs and breaking the law.

Anyway I can't see medical professionals wanting to become psychoactive drugs sales persons. I don't think it would be conform to the hypocratic oath tbh.

Don't forget it's the people on the worst drugs who are the biggest problem and need the most attention - if they keep being punished for posession then they remain subject to state violence, stigmatised, imprisoned etc and the cycle continues.

I say legalise all psychoactive drugs worldwide and let's give that a go because the so called 'war on drugs' (war on people) has been a spectacular failure.

Killer Pigeon

Chuck Stone wrote: »

This doen't make sense.

They're talking about decriminalising possesion not legalising drugs - where would medical professional get the drugs? How would they tell who was an addict and who was getting them and selling them to addicts? It just wouldn't be workable.

Medically perscribed methadone and heroine does exist, and it shouldn't be extremely hard for a doctor or a psychologist to differentiate between a hard drug addict and a someone who is totally detoxed. I think they do something like this in Holland. Addicts could avail of these substances from specially designated clinics.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Special stores is exactly where it should be sold from if drugs were legalised - like offy's but with drugs.

Not Heroine, crystal meth or any of those extremely hard drugs.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

This doesn't make sense^^. If we're legalising possesion then dealing would remain illegal so medical professionals would be dealing drugs and breaking the law.

Authorised medical professionals should be given the right to prescribe the aforementioned drugs in extreme circumstances in specially designated clinics where the drugs can be administered safely - not by criminals.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Anyway I can't see medical professionals wanting to become psychoactive drugs sales persons. I don't think it would be conform to the hypocratic oath tbh.

Don't certain medical professional prescribe certain types of psychoactive drugs all the time (legally)?

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I say legalise all psychoactive drugs worldwide and let's give that a go because the so called 'war on drugs' (war on people) has been a spectacular failure.

No. That wouldn't be the best idea.

Chuck Stone

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Medically perscribed methadone and heroine does exist, and it shouldn't be extremely hard for a doctor or a psychologist to differentiate between a hard drug addict and a someone who is totally detoxed. I think they do something like this in Holland. Addicts could avail of these substances from specially designated clinics.

Okay and where do people who use drugs recreationally go for their drugs? (leave addiction for professionls and sales to drug sellers - do you see why?)

Not Heroine, crystal meth or any of those extremely hard drugs.

Why not? Because you say so? You want to leave some drugs for the criminals to sell?

Authorised medical professionals should be given the right to prescribe the aforementioned drugs in extreme circumstances in specially designated clinics where the drugs can be administered safely - not by criminals.

If you're talking about legalisation then this is a wishy washy, badly thought out, beaureacratic nightmare. It's either legal or it's not. That would be like making vodka and whiskey illegal and only availiable to total raging alcoholics through medics who would have to believe the alcoholic - totally absurd.

It would next to impossible to figure out who a real drug addict and who's was getting cheap drugs to feed their habit or to sell to people on the street.

Let the medical profession treat addiction and not become involved in the distribution of drugs.

Don't certain medical professional prescribe certain types of psychoactive drugs all the time (legally)?

Yes but they don't give them to people who want them for a buzz. They are prescribed to ameliorate distress not to give the patient a bang. Can you imagine having to go to a medical professional for an ounce of coke or some herion to smoke? Again this is utterly absurd.

No. That wouldn't be the best idea.

So by saying this what you mean is - keep some drugs illegal. So what you are saying is that you want to continue with only some of the abject failure, violence, murder, imprisonment etc that orbits illegal drugs use. This is also ill thought out. It's a bit like saying were going to cut out some of the tumor but not the worst part.

thebigbiffo

The immediate reaction from the Home Office last night was to rule out any such move: "We have no intention of liberalising our drugs laws. Drugs are illegal because they are harmful – they destroy lives and cause untold misery to families and communities.
"Those caught in the cycle of dependency must be supported to live drug-free lives, but giving people a green light to possess drugs through decriminalisation is clearly not the answer," said a spokesman.
"We are taking action through tough enforcement, both inland and abroad, alongside introducing temporary banning powers and robust treatment programmes that lead people into drug free recovery."

i find it so tragically laughable that this kind of tired rhetoric is seen as an appropriate response to a serious call for change in drug policy. politician's clearly dont care for what is best for society - it's all about maintaining the status quo, not rocking the boat and ensuring they dont do anything to endanger votes. a galring example of what is actually worong with democracy.

amacachi

Doesn't address the gangs problem or anything else, should just free up the courts and some prison spaces.

thebigbiffo

amacachi wrote: »

Doesn't address the gangs problem or anything else, should just free up the courts and some prison spaces.

well taking control of the sale of as many drugs as possible and treating the more hamful ones as health concerns takes control almmost entirely away from criminal gangs giving them a lot less market share to fight over.

Killer Pigeon

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Okay and where do people who use drugs recreationally go for their drugs? (leave addiction for professionls and sales to drug sellers - do you see why?)

The administering of drugs in the case I mention involving a medical professional wouldn't be for recreational use. They wouldn't be available from drug dealers but special clinics authorised to sell them under prescription (almost like a pharmacy except a lot stricter).

Chuck Stone wrote: »

If you're talking about legalisation then this is a wishy washy, badly thought out, beaureacratic nightmare. It's either legal or it's not. That would be like making vodka and whiskey illegal and only availiable to total raging alcoholics through medics who would have to believe the alcoholic - totally absurd.

It's like saying pharmacies are badly thought out bureaucratic nightmares. It isn't as simple as the regulation of alcohol, especially in the case of hard highly addictive, highly damaging drugs. It isn't as black or white as you're making it out to be.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

It would next to impossible to figure out who a real drug addict and who's was getting cheap drugs to feed their habit or to sell to people on the street.

Let the medical profession treat addiction and not become involved in the distribution of drugs.

Letting special clinics to administer certain drugs could help medical professional to broaden the legal methods available to them to combat addiction. An example would be allowing pharmacists to sell methadone (prescribed by a doctor) to heroine addicts to threat their addition - by the way that's already in place in this country.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/heroin-addicts-left-waiting-for-methadone-supplies-1855277.html

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Yes but they don't give them to people who want them for a buzz. They are prescribed to ameliorate distress not to give the patient a bang.

And it should remain that way - making highly damaging, highly addictive drugs such as heroine or meth readily available is not the best idea. This is why one sometimes needs a prescription for certain medicines because they can be easily abused.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

So by saying this what you mean is - keep some drugs illegal. So what you are saying is that you want to continue with only some of the abject failure, violence, murder, imprisonment etc that orbits illegal drugs use. This is also ill thought out. It's a bit like saying were going to cut out some of the tumor but not the worst part.

I'm saying totally legalise softer less addictive and less physically damaging drugs (such as cannibis) and keep drugs such as heroine, meth out of the public domain as much as possible except when prescribed by a medical professional to treat addiction. You can't simply have all drug legal and readily available in an ordinary shop - that would be foolish - some drugs need to be prescribed and for a very good reason.

amacachi

thebigbiffo wrote: »

well taking control of the sale of as many drugs as possible and treating the more hamful ones as health concerns takes control almmost entirely away from criminal gangs giving them a lot less market share to fight over.

Well that's my point, simply decriminalising possession isn't enough. And I don't think the government should be controling supply of everything.

Fukuyama

amacachi wrote: »

Well that's my point, simply decriminalising possession isn't enough. And I don't think the government should be controling supply of everything.

It's a start none the less. And in itself it would free up some garda time.

If there's one thing about governments it's that you have to take baby steps with them. Just because someone is in office, doesn't mean they're right.

A politicians first job in office is to make sure he keeps his seat. Scaring the living daylights out of aul wans and Daily Mail readers who have never bothered to actually think of the issue, isn't going to win them many seats.

Killer Pigeon

amacachi wrote: »

Well that's my point, simply decriminalising possession isn't enough. And I don't think the government should be controling supply of everything.

Well I think the government should regulate the supply of certain things - for example, it wouldn't be the best idea to have cyanide pills and pills that would chemically lobotomise people readily available in the medicine section of your local Tescos. The line has to be draws somewhere.

mconigol

thebigbiffo wrote: »

i find it so tragically laughable that this kind of tired rhetoric is seen as an appropriate response to a serious call for change in drug policy. politician's clearly dont care for what is best for society - it's all about maintaining the status quo, not rocking the boat and ensuring they dont do anything to endanger votes. a galring example of what is actually worong with democracy.

What exactly is so laughable about it?

The fact that it's true??

thebigbiffo

mconigol wrote: »

What exactly is so laughable about it?

The fact that it's true??

you're joking right? i suspect not, which is sad.

what's laughable is that after 40 years of a proven failed drugs policy the home office says things like 'we have no intention of liberalising drug laws' and go on to use cliches like 'those caught in a cycle of dependancy', 'we are taking action through tough enforcement' and saying they'll use 'robust treatment programs that lead people into drug free recovery'.

let me explain (and to my mind it's extremely sad that i have to): tough drug laws have clearly not helped eradicate or even slow down drug use in society - and the home office wont even admit considering liberalisation; those caught in a 'cycle of dependancy' are essentially outside the system and working against it whereas an approach based on public health and not criminalisation encourages addicts to engage with authorities; 'we are taking action through tough enforcement' is clearly just old hat rhetoric - we know by now no matter how tough you make the enforcement of prohibition it doesn't decrease use and finally, the ultimate in cliches, they will use 'robust treatment programs that lead people into a drug free recovery'. in all countries with harsh drug laws a very small % of the money spent on drug policy goes to treatment. treatment centres are grossly underfunded, inadequate and hard to access. money spent on enforcement could be diverted to tackling the social and health problems surrounding drug use. simply treating all drug users as common criminals and forcing them outside society is not working and has never worked - chronic drug addicts need people to work WITH them to beat their abuse, not against them as the current laws dictate.

i seriously can not believe how in modern times and with the wealth of information available to everyone it's still nessessary to explain the above and for the UK home office to stick to the same tired old lines.

Eric Cartman

with regards to heroin : just because its legal doesnt mean everyone will start doing it, it will just continue as normal, drug dealers selling to lads who are going to get it any way , if your stupid enough to go near heroin, crystal meth etc youll probably die soon enough anyway so no real loss there.

for the recreational user carrying a few pills or a bag of weed this is definitley a positive step considering theres no proven harm caused

Fremen

Guys, GUYS!

No one's thinking of the children!

Chuck Stone

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Well I think the government should regulate the supply of certain things - for example, it wouldn't be the best idea to have cyanide pills and pills that would chemically lobotomise people readily available in the medicine section of your local Tescos. The line has to be draws somewhere.

I don't think Tesco, or any other business with a reputation to uphold, would want to be associated with drugs. If legalised drugs would be sold in speciality drug shops - like sex shops for example.

Regadless, the government has no business telling people what they should or shouldn't put in their bodies for enjoyment. Govts spend billions of dollars every year trying to stop people from consuming drugs and they've utterly failed. Indeed when it comes to drug use governments are as bad as drug dealers if not worse - they will kick down a person's door, kidnap them and deprive them of their liberty for consuming drugs which is essentially a victimless crime.

As for the keep-some-drugs-evil foolhardiness...

Around 1980, the United States had 40,000 people in prison for drug crimes. After the passage of Reagan's Anti-Drug Abuse Act in 1986, incarceration for non-violent offenses dramatically increased. Part of the legislation included the implementation of mandatory minimum sentences for "the distribution of cocaine, including far more severe punishment for distribution of crack—associated with blacks—than powder cocaine, associated with whites". Under the Anti-Drug Abuse Act, users of powder cocaine can possess up to 100 times more substance than users of crack, while facing the same mandatory sentence. Aimed at low-level street dealers, the Anti-Drug Act targeted poor blacks, Latinos, the young, and women

.. yeah right - great idea:rolleyes:

Sanjuro

Decriminalisation of drugs or a serious shift in policy is not going to happen under a Conservative government, that's for damn sure. Just like it wont happen in the States under a Republican government. And neither will it happen under the Democrats who are now moderate conservatives rather than liberals.

The title of 'war on...' is a complete joke. It's political speak for dumbasses. And so are the policies that go along with them. There is no desire to deal with the issue of drugs that deviates from the current policy of blanket ban and prosecution of those associated with drugs that do the least damage to society- the user. They're the soft targets, and easiest to provide 'results.' It's all about numbers. You could lock up 100 users, which will look good to the average joe, but will not actually make a dent in the problem. Or else you could change policy. Which is a long and arduous process, with not much in the way of immediate results, and thus, no immediate positive light for the government that introduces the change. A true desire for change would result in a change of policy. But maintain the status quo and be able to say 'this year we locked up 1000 criminals for using marijuana. (But the problem still persists)' That's what politicians are interested in.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Awesome, hopefully we follow suit. Although, it may not happen for some times...

DrumSteve

Free the weed.
Legalise it.
Brand new shampoo.
Beep Beep Rob a Jeep.
Yup Yup Seven Up.

(and other stuff I wrote on my homework journal back in 3rd year cos I though it was cool).

mconigol

thebigbiffo wrote: »

you're joking right? i suspect not, which is sad.

what's laughable is that after 40 years of a proven failed drugs policy the home office says things like 'we have no intention of liberalising drug laws' and go on to use cliches like 'those caught in a cycle of dependancy', 'we are taking action through tough enforcement' and saying they'll use 'robust treatment programs that lead people into drug free recovery'.

let me explain (and to my mind it's extremely sad that i have to): tough drug laws have clearly not helped eradicate or even slow down drug use in society - and the home office wont even admit considering liberalisation; those caught in a 'cycle of dependancy' are essentially outside the system and working against it whereas an approach based on public health and not criminalisation encourages addicts to engage with authorities; 'we are taking action through tough enforcement' is clearly just old hat rhetoric - we know by now no matter how tough you make the enforcement of prohibition it doesn't decrease use and finally, the ultimate in cliches, they will use 'robust treatment programs that lead people into a drug free recovery'. in all countries with harsh drug laws a very small % of the money spent on drug policy goes to treatment. treatment centres are grossly underfunded, inadequate and hard to access. money spent on enforcement could be diverted to tackling the social and health problems surrounding drug use. simply treating all drug users as common criminals and forcing them outside society is not working and has never worked - chronic drug addicts need people to work WITH them to beat their abuse, not against them as the current laws dictate.

i seriously can not believe how in modern times and with the wealth of information available to everyone it's still nessessary to explain the above and for the UK home office to stick to the same tired old lines.

So liberalisation is the solution?

If anything that will lead to an increase in hard drug addicts.

Everything they've said is perfectly true.

JBnaglfar

I was wondering where I would post this, and here seems as good as anywhere. Forget your celebrities, the Global Commission on Drugs Policy has released a report calling for the decriminalisation of drugs, and claiming the war on drugs has failed. RTE report here contains a link to the report if anyone wants to read.

A group of prominent former world leaders has said the war on drugs has 'failed' and that decriminalising marijuana may help curb drug-related violence and social ills.
'The global war on drugs has failed, with devastating consequences for individuals and societies around the world,' the members of the Global Commission on Drug Policy say in a report.
'50 years after the initiation of the UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, and 40 years after President (Richard) Nixon launched the US government's war on drugs, fundamental reforms in national and global drug control policies are urgently needed.'
It said restrictions on marijuana should be loosened and urged governments to 'end the criminalisation, marginalisation and stigmatisation of people who use drugs but who do no harm to others'.

'Encourage experimentation by governments with models of legal regulation of drugs (especially cannabis) to undermine the power of organised crime and safeguard the health and security of their citizens,' the report urged.
'Decriminalisation initiatives do not result in significant increases in drug use,' the report said, citing policies in Australia, Holland and Portugal.

The report is a fairly interesting read.

thebigbiffo

DrumSteve wrote: »

Free the weed.
Legalise it.
Brand new shampoo.
Beep Beep Rob a Jeep.
Yup Yup Seven Up.

(and other stuff I wrote on my homework journal back in 3rd year cos I though it was cool).

are you trying to imply i'm immature because i love rocking out to pink floyd while sucking on fat doob and being comsumed with angst related to to my parents being squares?

JBnaglfar

mconigol wrote: »

So liberalisation is the solution?

If anything that will lead to an increase in hard drug addicts.

Everything they've said is perfectly true.

Decriminalisation of drugs in Portugal (including heroin) has lead to a decrease in drug use. (see my previous post). Admittedly the data may be somewhat limited, as not many countries have liberalised drug use to this extent but the evidence we have to go on at the moment suggests liberalisation is the way to go to not only decrease drug use but also reduce harmful side effects to society such as the funding of criminal gangs.

thebigbiffo

mconigol wrote: »

So liberalisation is the solution?

If anything that will lead to an increase in hard drug addicts.

Everything they've said is perfectly true.

you clearly haven't a clue what you are talking about. a simple google search will show you that countries with liberal drug laws (Portugal, The Netherlands) are the only countries to achieve decreases in overall drug use. the country with the most stringently enforced drug laws (US) shows continued increases.

mconigol

JBnaglfar wrote: »

Decriminalisation of drugs in Portugal (including heroin) has lead to a decrease in drug use. (see my previous post). Admittedly the data may be somewhat limited, as not many countries have liberalised drug use to this extent but the evidence we have to go on at the moment suggests liberalisation is the way to go to not only decrease drug use but also reduce harmful side effects to society such as the funding of criminal gangs.

But the gangs and drugs are still illegal so the gangs are still being funded.

I remain skeptical about Portugal but to be honest I don't know very much about it. There may be other factors that are not being taken into account.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Another Lib-Dem sellout. They haven't pushed their decriminalization policies at all.

mconigol

thebigbiffo wrote: »

you clearly haven't a clue what you are talking about. a simple google search will show you that countries with liberal drug laws (Portugal, The Netherlands) are the only countries to achieve decreases in overall drug use. the country with the most stringently enforced drug laws (US) shows continued increases.

Less of the personal abuse. I'm just discussing it and I don't claim to know everything about the topic. Just because I don't immediately jump on the bandwagon :rolleyes:

JBnaglfar

mconigol wrote: »

But the gangs and drugs are still illegal so the gangs are still being funded.

I'm not certain what you mean here. Yes the gangs are illegal, but clearly the drugs are not (in a decriminalised context).

Of course you are right that that gangs will likely still manage to fund themselves, but that does not mean that we should not take away this source of finance. If legislation is necessary, why not focus on tackling organised crime rather than drug users?

From the report on global drugs:

If national governments or local administrations feel that decriminalization policies will save money and deliver better health and social outcomes for their communities, or that the creation of a regulated market may reduce the power of organized crime and improve the security of their citizens, then the international community should support and facilitate such policy experiments and learn from their application.

Similarly, national authorities and the UN need to review the scheduling of different substances. The current schedules, designed to represent the relative risks and harms of various drugs, were set in place 50 years ago when there was little scientific evidence on which to base these decisions. This has resulted in some obvious anomalies – cannabis and coca leaf, in particular, now seem to be incorrectly scheduled and this needs to be addressed.

mconigol

JBnaglfar wrote: »

I'm not certain what you mean here. Yes the gangs are illegal, but clearly the drugs are not (in a decriminalised context).

Of course you are right that that gangs will likely still manage to fund themselves, but that does not mean that we should not take away this source of finance. If legislation is necessary, why not focus on tackling organised crime rather than drug users?

From the report on global drugs:

Well if drugs are decriminalized for ordinary people that doesn't mean that drugs are legal. They still have to be provided by illegal suppliers who are funded by the people who buy from them. You don't get rid of drug gangs basically.

Bottle_of_Smoke

decriminalisation isn't anything like legalisation. It just means its not a criminal offence to be in possession for personal use. Being in possession with intent to supply is still a criminal offence.

Heroin already is decriminalised in practice. If a garda finds a junkie with a bag of gear he usually won't take it off him because he knows the junkie will beg or steal to get more.

dsmythy

Simple possession should be decriminalised while dealers get stiffer sentences.

JBnaglfar

mconigol wrote: »

Well if drugs are decriminalized for ordinary people that doesn't mean that drugs are legal. They still have to be provided by illegal suppliers who are funded by the people who buy from them. You don't get rid of drug gangs basically.

Ah ok, I see what you mean. There are alternative options though. I believe that it is allowed to grow your own Cannabis plants for personal use in Spain. I would like to see an adoption of Portugal's approach to heroin users, where they can get a prescription rather than buy from a dealer. Maybe I'm naive here, but surely its better to help rather than stigmatise/punish drug addicts.

It seems that the current system simply doesn't work, and I would be in favour of adopting some form of decriminalisation/legalisation policy. I would also like to say that I don't personally use drugs (besides alcohol, caffeine etc.), but I think that if it would improve society then it should be done.

thebigbiffo

mconigol wrote: »

Less of the personal abuse. I'm just discussing it and I don't claim to know everything about the topic. Just because I don't immediately jump on the bandwagon :rolleyes:

how exactly is pointing out that you are ill-informed personal abuse now? you made closed statements (not questions or points opening up a debate) that are completely inaccurate and i'm simply pointing out this shows you dont have a clue about the the real effects of liberalisation.

Hookah

The Global Commission on Drug Policy also agrees that the 'War on Drugs' is a failure.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13624303

chillywilly

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

I also think that the whole official "class of drugs" categorisation needs to be reviewed.

Ye something like :

Coke: Upper Class
Weed: Middle Class
Heroin: Working Class


:pac:

Eric Cartman

http://eduardoporter.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/drugs-win-war-on-drugs.jpg

Eric Cartman

chillywilly wrote: »

Ye something like :

Coke: Wanna Be Upper Class Douchebags & RTE Employees
Weed: Middle Class
Heroin: Working Class
Extacy : Its Fúckin Class


:pac:

FYP