[ukip72]

Decriminalisation won't work, give people much tougher sentences.

[mohsanrabbani]

(Original post by JCC-MGS)
Decriminalisation will happen, the tides are turning that way. This level of illegal drug use, and essentially open drug use, is unsustainable without changing legislation. Whether I think drugs should be legalised is a different point and I dunno, I know this is an odd argument to make but selling drugs is essentially a blanket economy for people who need money but aren't getting it from the conventional economy a lot of the time. If you take it away those people need a replacement for that income and it's unclear what they'd turn to. I know a few people who say the recession is hurting their dealing so they're moving on to odd jobs, carjacking, loan sharking and all kinds of ****, I'd expect an increase in muggings and burglaries, a new focus of attention on human trafficking, prescription meds etc from bigger gangs. Until the reasons for why people are working in drugs are addressed you can't just remove the industry from the street and put it in the shops

but surely the large amount of drug dealers creates/maintains more police jobs as they have something to do, also CIA and various other departments like forensics can have more investigations regarding drug crimes. At the end if we some how eradicate drug dealers there will be cuts all over the police force

[JCC-MGS]

(Original post by mohsanrabbani)
but surely the large amount of drug dealers creates/maintains more police jobs as they have something to do, also CIA and various other departments like forensics can have more investigations regarding drug crimes. At the end if we some how eradicate drug dealers there will be cuts all over the police force

Lol less feds? Cry me a river akhi, I'd have a party tomorrow if there were police cuts, Babylon fall etc. In all seriousness tho eliminating the illegal drug trade without addressing underlying causes would just lead to increases in other crimes like I said so I don't think there would be police cuts it's just that the DEA and equivalent agencies would be dissolved and replaced with departments addressing the increase in other organised crime. In the early transition period there would be plenty bloodshed for police to sink their teeth into as those previously in drugs scramble for space in other, already occupied, enterprises, and those who can't turn to street crime. Drug crime is a political gimmick, it would exist in different forms without drugs. If the underlying poverty was addressed and drug legalisation just phased in naturally, I can't say I would care if police lose their jobs

[n00]

www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4423226/Decriminalisation-does-not-mean-more-drug-users.html

The Sun again.

[mohsanrabbani]

(Original post by JCC-MGS)
Lol less feds? Cry me a river akhi, I'd have a party tomorrow if there were police cuts, Babylon fall etc. In all seriousness tho eliminating the illegal drug trade without addressing underlying causes would just lead to increases in other crimes like I said so I don't think there would be police cuts it's just that the DEA and equivalent agencies would be dissolved and replaced with departments addressing the increase in other organised crime. In the early transition period there would be plenty bloodshed for police to sink their teeth into as those previously in drugs scramble for space in other, already occupied, enterprises, and those who can't turn to street crime. Drug crime is a political gimmick, it would exist in different forms without drugs. If the underlying poverty was addressed and drug legalisation just phased in naturally, I can't say I would care if police lose their jobs

i guess people dont really appreciate the police until they really need them

[Astronomical]

I don't actually understand why any drugs are illegal anyway.

Surely the argument for allowing people to smoke or allowing people to drink alcohol is equally as valid for somebody wanting to smoke marijuana or snort cocaine?

Besides, most of the "negatives" are a result of the fact that these drugs are illegal. For instance, if cocaine was legal, and was readily available at Tesco or Boots, then there would be testing agencies, it wouldn't be cut with all sorts of dodgy stuff, and ultimately much of the organised crime that revolves around this trade would die out.

In fact it would open up an entirely new industry and create thousands of jobs in perhaps specialised drug-retailers, drug production companies, drug crop farming, and so on. Think about all the extra tax that would be generated by VAT on drug sales, too.

The problem is that illegal drugs are stigmatised far more so than cigarettes or alcohol, especially class-A drugs, which are classified on no scientific basis whatsoever anyway.

The fact that some potentially harmful and open-to-abuse drugs are legal (tobacco, alcohol) and others illegal (cocaine, heroin, LSD, ecstasy, marijuana, etc.) is absolutely preposterous from a purely rational perspective, and this is coming from somebody rarely ever drinks alcohol and has no intention of using any of tobacco, marijuana, cocaine, etc.

[Alistair122]

(Original post by Darkphilosopher)
So the drug cartels in Mexico are going to suddenly start producing drugs in a more moral manner simply because legislation in the UK allows for dealing and consumption of drugs?

In the same way that sweatshops across the world have closed down due to being able to produce goods that are legally traded in the UK?

Ohh come on don't straw man me. The trade at the moment is underground because its illegal. Obviously them being legal in the UK but remaining illegal in the Americas wont do much to stop the illegal trade and problems that go with it. However, if it is legal in the country of production (I'm not sure if coca can be grown in the UK; I'm presuming it can't) the crime associated with the production of the drugs should disappear, as it will become profitable whilst complying with legalities. The marijuana grow centres in the UK would find it profitable to employ proper, full paid staff, without the risk of breaking the law, and so would do so. In essence, you would take the drug trade out of the hands of gangs and to small businesses.
Right so the example with clothes manufacturers the advantage they have is in the cheap labour abroad. The cost of importing cocaine into the UK is massive, supposing it remains illegal abroad; one drug gang used a submarine to do so- which even the Mexican Navy cannot afford. It would be far cheaper if the coca leaves were grown, which they currently can be, legally, in south america, then imported into the UK, again legally, where they could be processed and turned into cocaine. This would therefore remove UK derived business from the drug cartels in Mexico. The use of sweatshop-like conditions is obviously illegal in the UK, and as the drug trade would now be transparent, these vices could be removed from the industry.

[JCC-MGS]

(Original post by mohsanrabbani)
i guess people dont really appreciate the police until they really need them

Not really since your point was that they'd lose their jobs cause they wasn't needed

[King Kebab]

I find it disgusting that people like David Cameron and Louise Mensch who have admitted to taking drugs earlier in their lives are passing laws that send people who do the exact same thing to jail for a very long time. If they think this is the right way to deal with drug users, maybe they should go to jail too. That would be a nice gesture from them.

[Fatfis]

(Original post by ukip72)
Decriminalisation won't work, give people much tougher sentences.

The whole point is that the current system of sentencing those users and dealers as criminals isn't producing any beneficial results for society which of course is the whole point of the law, it isn't stemming the use or criminal activity surrounding it, Ken Clarke made this very point, this suggests that moving further in this direction wouldn't be the answer, deterrence as asserted by you is unenforceable due to the huge numbers of users, and that kind of mindset in government generates a toxic underworld ignored and unregulated, decriminalise or even legalise and you bring drugs into the pubic arena, this will pull the rug out from under criminal syndicates, taking back the revenue they make on drugs by having it manufactured with controlled standards making it safer for users all round and those that produce it, as someone said earlier it will bring drug makers under the control of the consumer rather than vice versa. The current set up we have is arbitrary why should alcohol and cigarettes be legal in this country when they cause the most death, compared to say weed which has almost no associative death - the amount of revenue the government loses in potential tax to thugs on the street is completely unnecessary. Look at European countries like holland and portugal society has not dissolved from simple decriminalisation and it wont here either.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[lesley keith]

no this should not happen

[Teaddict]

It is quite evident that the policy of the United Kingdom in respect of drugs policy has been an utter failure. Quite frankly, it is my view that all the evidence suggests at least decriminalisation, although I would personally go a step further and actually legalise some substances also. The method of selection for legalisation should be based on relative harm to tobacco and alcohol; if the drug is less damaging, legalise it. If more damaging, decriminalise.



On the basis of the above, I came to the above conclusion for a sample of common substances.

There are sound medical and political arguments for the decriminalisation of drugs as can be witnessed by studies in Portugal whereby decriminalisation has seen drastic reductions in usage, illnesses resulting from drug use and crime relating to drug use.

However, as stated above, I personally support legalisation of many substances. It is somewhat more difficult to justify legalisation, however, I believe the following should suffice for now.

Civil Liberties

One argument is of civil liberties: the idea that I, as a free individual, should be able to take drugs to my hearts content - the idea that victimless crimes should not be considered crimes at all. The Report of the Departmental Committee on Homosexual Offences and Prostitution, albeit focusing on homosexuality, made a very interesting conclusion which should by rights be applied to more behaviours and acts than just homosexuality. The report concluded that...

"The law's function is to preserve public order and decency, to protect the citizen from what is offensive or injurious, and to provide sufficient safeguards against exploitation and corruption of others ... It is not, in our view, the function of the law to intervene in the private life of citizens, or to seek to enforce any particular pattern of behaviour"

The report is quite clear: Victimless crimes shouldn't be considered crimes at all - it should not be the function of the law to intervene in the private lives of citizens.


Regulation and Taxation

If illegal substances were legalised, it would allow the government to not regulate the substances to ensure a high quality; and to ensure that such substances are not mixed with less desirable substances, but it would also allow the government to apply sin taxes to the substances in the same way that taxes are applied to tobacco and alcohol.

The subsequent taxation can then be invested in programmes designed to aide addicts and to raise awareness about the effects of certain drugs.

Eliminate the Crime Market

Should drugs be legalised, the sale and distribution of drugs could be removed from the criminal markets and put into the hands of businesses subjected to government regulations and taxation as outlined above. Whats more, is if businesses were required to obtain a license from the relevant authorities, then local and central government could have greater awareness about distribution and areas of higher or lower than national average drug usage which further allows for targeted programmes.


Judicial Implications

Currently a lot of police and judicial time is wasted on dealing with drug related criminal offences ranging from possession to distribution. The legalisation and decriminalisation of drugs, harm-potential dependent, would remove the the need of the police and judiciary to waste precious time and resources on dealing with victimless crimes and instead focusing on the more serious elements of crime.



Sorry that I do not have time to write a more conclusive and detailed post but I hope the above is interesting to read anyway XD

[feelingsupersonic]

Everyone knows that the only way to win the "war" on drugs is to give up completely and legalise them.

[Teaddict]

(Original post by ukip72)
Decriminalisation won't work, give people much tougher sentences.

Actually it will work... scratch that, does work. All the evidence shows that decriminalisation reduces usage of substances, increases the likelihood that individuals suffering addiction will seek help and will result in a reduction in crime associated with substance abuse.

[ESPORTIVA]

(Original post by ukip72)
Decriminalisation won't work, give people much tougher sentences.

You what? Decriminalisation will work abit, but legalisation will work even better. Tougher sentences wont do anything, except flood the prisons with people who havent really done anything.

Yes certain drugs are dangerous but prohibition makes them even MORE DANGEROUS.

People who want drugs to stay illegal share the same view with.......... The psychopathic drug cartels who also want drugs to stay illegal, think about it.

[Skale10]

First of all, does anyone know the current state of conviction if you are caught with weed?

Any solid source that depicts what first time offenders go through when caught with a certain amount of weed? I know in the states it is quite varied depending on location, so I'm wondering what's the deal with the UK

If this question has been raised before, please do not forgive me in advance, instead verbal assault my ass through the screen, have a ball.

[rwoodhard1]

The main reason for taxing cigarettes is to compensate for the negative externality from increased costs to the NHS. Similarly if we legalised and taxed other drugs the gains in tax revenue might be offset by even higher costs to the NHS. I understand that taxes on tobacco are higher than the extra cost to the government from the externalities resulting from smoking and so legalising drugs and taxing them would boost government tax revenues, I just don't think the boost would be as large as we all speculate. Therefore I don't think we should take the increased tax revenue point that seriously

[J.Star]

(Original post by King Kebab)
I find it disgusting that people like David Cameron and Louise Mensch who have admitted to taking drugs earlier in their lives are passing laws that send people who do the exact same thing to jail for a very long time. If they think this is the right way to deal with drug users, maybe they should go to jail too. That would be a nice gesture from them.

Lol exactly, although it is unlikely that they would of been sent to prison, if Cameron had of been caught smoking weed and Mensch had been caught taking Class A drugs (I presume it was Cocaine) then they would not be in the positions they are today. How very hypocritical.

[DudeRugs]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain...f-in-portugal/

[Heeck]

I have no problem with the legalisation of marijuana because really the damage it does compared to other products which are sold legally such as beer and cigarettes is insignificant.

Although I completely disagree with the legalisation of the harder drugs such as cocaine and heroin, yes criminals will profit from them being illegal but I cannot phantom the damage that would be done to society if they were to be legalised and allowed to be sold in shops .