Legalization of drugs how would it work ?

kneemos wrote: »

You just have to look at happened with the Head Shops recently to see what happens when drugs are legalised,queues down the street every weekend night.
Legal means acceptable which they aren't.

Did it occur to you that the vast, vast majority of the people in these queues would have otherwise bought drugs illegally from a dealer?

Mind you, I'm not condoning head shops, I don't do drugs outside of caffeine, alcohol, tobacco and the very, very rare joint (in a situation where someone would offer me a drag at an after party, towards the end of the night). Maybe I am wrong on this, but I get the feeling that the 'legal' stuff sold in head shops is only 'legal' because it's a mystery what compounds are in half the stuff - e.g. that is is new 'technology' (kind of like how steroids & PEDs keep developing) that is not illegal yet as it has not been sufficiently tested.

---

I don't necessarily support the legalisation of all drugs, though I agree with the model some countries have taken for making possession of any substance legal (or at least decriminalised) while coming down like a tonne of bricks on anyone dealing, or what a sufficient amount to be deemed as intent to distribute. It's the street-level dealers that need to be targeted, with a view to using them as a means to 'climb the ladder' and get to the heads of these operations. The Wire unsurprisingly captured this extremely well, as well as the pitfalls and roadblocks in the way.

Some drugs however such as cannabis, should be legalised. This could also extend to LSD, mushrooms and ecstasy - with tight, tight regulations surrounding their production and distribution. One method could be a photo ID card, similar to a rivers licence, allowing for a 'set amount' such as 2g of cannabis a day, or one/two ecstasy tablets per week, of whatever. Link it to a central database, similar to how your details show up with a passport scan. If you got to buy a pill of ecstasy on Saturday, and the database shows you bought one on Wednesday... no service. Likewise, if you "lost your card", no service. It will severely limit abuse of substances, and if people are worried about the cost of doing something like this, they obviously don't know how profitable that general industry is. Dispense them in specialised vendors, located in extremely close proximity to Garda stations.

Added to that, if any tourists plan on visiting Ireland for 'recreational' purposes, allow them to do so - but they must cover the administrative cost of their 'temporary' card (to cover the length of their visit). This also would further help tourism, and if they don't have any inclinations to take any drugs over here, they simply don't need to apply for the 'card' and avoid extra charges.

If the government becomes the producer and distributor of these drugs, it will not only allow them to keep everything firmly under their thumb for practical purposes, but would mean a MASSIVE, and sustained boost to the economy. It would cut out the lethal concoctions found in head shops (which they could then shut down altogether without much of any argument - even bring some of the owners/staff of those shops into their own model, as they have some experience), and would eliminate the gateway of getting in touch with dodgy dealers and that general via cannabis/ecstasy - the idea being that over time, this reduces the exposure people have to more dangerous drugs at least at younger ages, and thus allows them to make more sensible decisions rather than having it gently pushed on them whenever they go to get some pills or grass or whatever.

As for consumption, establishments could apply for licences - some cafes for cannabis, some nightclubs for ecstasy (so you could have some with, and some without), etc. This would also provide a boost to some small businesses in this sense (if you've got a cafe full of stoned people, you'll have no problems with aggro and will make a lot of money off food and drink ), whereas the 'ecstasy clubs' would likely charge a much higher entry fee, as their clientele would be unlikely to be spending much on alcohol. Hopefully (though not likely) that would also in turn allow other nightclubs to lower their drink or entry prices a little, as they wouldn't have a chunk of their customers just ordering water all night.

If we use Amsterdam as an example (though as best I know they only allow cannabis and possibly mushrooms), you would need a good few plain-clothes Gards though. Anyone who has walked around Amsterdam after dark on weekends knows you can barely go a few hundred metres without someone passing you whispering (coke, coca, pills, e's... coke, coca, pills, e's... you want?), so you would want to come down on them fast and hard and also to bring in harsh laws for 'offers of sale' as I would imagine that these lads if you accept, take you down an alley to someone who is holding everything. The law would need to be able to get around that somehow, which would be tricky.

The benefits being:
- Illegal sale of drugs plummeting (and any caught doing so being treated similar to a drug mule in Peru).
- More informed decision making customers (hence why it must be gov't distribution - can't trust private industry here).
- Huge, sustained increase in income for the government.
- Potential boost for small tertiary businesses operating as 'consumption centres' (cafes, clubs, etc).
- Specialisation of these businesses allowing both benefit (weed/non-weed cafes, esctasy/non-ecstasy clubs, etc).
- Potential tourism bump.

*I know the above is not a flawless plan and likely has more holes than Swiss cheese in it, but I think it would work very well as a blueprint to develop upon.

rubadub wrote: »

Yeah, like when prohibition was lifted in the US, its well known that every single person involved in the legal alcohol trade is a scumbag...

Let's be honest though - a lot are. Though, as you are getting at, a good number of people grow their own stuff and distribute it to friends, people they know, etc. I think the government would also be well-served to extend an olive branch to a number of these people, who would know far more about growth, etc of cannabis than anyone in office or even most medical experts we have. Not all of them by any means, but some of these people (if this were to occur) would need to be treated as assets, rather than scourge and lowlifes.

rubadub wrote: »

Oh dear. Even our own gardai have unofficially dropped the gateway nonsense, made them look like complete eejits.

Exactly. The drug itself is not a 'gateway' - exposure to people who can get you to 'the next level' of drugs, and will look to do so in order to make more money off you, are.

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I can't see how legalising cannabis makes sense when we're trying to discourage smoking for health reasons unless the answer is brownies.

As you said, there are many other ways to ingest cannabis besides smoking - and while far from safe, consumption of a pure weed joint avoids tobacco/nicotine/etc. It also leads to far less smoking, as a single, very skinny Rizla skin of weed would hit someone more immediately and probably stronger than a three-skin joint (which is usually comprised of 75+ percent tobacco). The THC can be extracted and placed in to any number of foodstuffs or even drinks, for example.

Sunglasses Ron wrote: »

There are a lot more financially successful raging alcoholics who take a swig on the job than there are financially successful businessmen who spark up three times in the work day.

...and there are loads of people in business who not only can operate with, but actually benefit in their professional role off of the consumption of cocaine. So I fail to see what you are getting at here?