Decriminalise drug use, say experts after six-year study

Scroll to see replies

I thought we were supposed to be getting rid of our drug problem and why are you not worried about young people getting hooked on drugs?

It's not that, it's that the experts believe that the tough strategy actually has the opposite effect, it doesn't work. The expert after his/her 6 year study concluded decriminalization would not increase abuse.

Original post by squishy123

You mistook my perception of a "prison" for the current one that exists. This would be a prison solely for addicts who would will not be allowed visitors until they are released back in society.

Solitary confinement for being an addict? They're not ****ing war criminals, they've harmed themselves. Besides staff can smuggle drugs in and suddenly going clean can kill you.

Original post by squishy123

Because they are living in this country and it's the law?

You're proposing a change in the law that says people should lose their access to a public service, for a personal choice but still pay for that service. If that happened that would be appalling, they wouldn't calmly take drugs and not go to hospital or claim benefits they would steal to pay for treatment and to fund their addiction. Crime would get even worse.

Original post by squishy123

Now what are the statistics for fighting drug abuse, petty theft to fund drug habits etc?

It was information about the cost of tobacco abuse vs the tax collected. Of course if drugs were legalized the cost of fighting drug use would go down.

Original post by squishy123

So the only person that pays tax is the consumer?

There would be a tax on the drugs and shops would decide whether or not they want to absorb it or pass it on to the consumer.

Original post by squishy123

Say if a former gang monopolizes the drug shops in London by using underhand tactics like selling cheap etc, what would you do exactly?

We have anti-monopoly laws for most things so it couldn't happen, I don't see why they would sell them too cheaply they're in it to make money rather than because they enjoy seeing addicts, they don't care.

Original post by squishy123

Well then, how did they earn money? Did they go out like a normal person and work 9-5 with a criminal record? Come on, dude, think!

They should have to apply for a license to sell controlled substances, previous convictions would be held against them of course.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 201

Redolent

Original post by squishy123

How? I was demonstrating the point that smoking is a progressive disease whilst someone taking drugs for the first time may lead to an overdose.

That is not relevant. You are saying that taking drugs should not be allowed because it causes harm to loved ones (presumably emotional harm) - the same applies to any risk-taking behaviour and most risk-taking behaviour is legal.

Running IS a personal choice yet you fail to take into account that it may be necessary to run sometimes due to an emergency.

However, you do not have to take drugs and thus it is seen as a luxury whilst also being personal choice.

And if it isn't an emergency, should it be illegal then?

But don't they need to learn that drugs are harmful to their body? We can treat them in prisons exclusive of other criminals, can we not?

We shouldn't be locking them up in the first place. It doesn't work. This has been proven in numerous studies.

Wait! How can they "relapse or die of an overdose" if they are in a "prison" for drug users?

People don't stay in prison forever.

Also do you seriously not know about the dangers of withdrawal symptoms? Saying everyone should be forced against their will to go cold turkey is disgusting.

But the crime rates will stay the same as well as the addiction rates, right?

No, they will both probably get lower. Even if they did stay the same, that would still be an argument in favour of legalisation/decriminalisation.

Some people have enormous appetites which I presume, they were born with.

Good for them, they are still costing taxpayers money.

I thought the scientific community was all about evidence-counter evidence-counter evidence-counter evidence etc etc etc...

Unless there is consensus, and there is pretty strong consensus when it comes to the flaws of government drug policy.

He didn't exactly endorse the report. He didn't even give specific examples of countries that implement this strategy.

He didn't endorse the report?! Are you being deliberately obtuse? He CHAIRED the report! I am actually in disbelief at some of the arguments you are trying to make.

Get private medical insurance and don't sponge off the government ever and you can take all the drugs you like. No one cares then...

Or we can simply tax the goods in order to internalise the healthcare costs as I have said numerous times! And we can't do either of those things unless it is legal.

http://www.tutor2u.net/economics/revision-notes/as-marketfailure-negative-externalities.html

Read. Drug healthcare costs are an example of negative externalities. Negative externalities can be "internalised" by placing additional taxes on the undesirable goods which are then reinvested to cover the external costs those undesirable goods generate. This is both far more humane and far more efficient than the system you advocate. If you cannot engage with the concept of negative externalities, internalising costs via taxes and do not understand why it is a more effective and efficient system than taking away people's healthcare then you do not know enough to competently debate this topic and need to stop wasting time.

You are advocating that it would raise tax revenue. I'm asking what percentage will you tax?

Did you even read the quote you responded to? That is a question only government economists can answer because only government economists have the tools to work out how much tax revenue is needed to treat drug addicts.

And then you claim that there would be no enforcement costs.

I never claimed that, however they would be lower than they are now.

So why state something that you do not know? And then you have the cheek to tell me not to express my opinions.

Because I understand the economic arguments for why drug decriminalisation or legalisation are better deals for the taxpayer than the current failed prohibition system. You clearly do not understand these economic arguments, so you ignore them. By ignoring them you are wasting all of our time, because they disprove the silly points you keep making.

And if research came out tomorrow stating that decriminalization would lead to problems on a massive scale, I'm sure you would be the first in line to defend that research, right?

There is no such research, don't start bringing hypothetical scenarios into this it's bad enough already

Reply 202

squishy123

Original post by sugar-n-spice

Surely if more people have access to it, then there would be more users?

Solitary confinement for being an addict? They're not ****ing war criminals, they've harmed themselves. Besides staff can smuggle drugs in and suddenly going clean can kill you.

That may be true for alcohol but sudden drugs withdrawal would not kill you.

So basically the state would be propping up people's drug habits?

It was information about the cost of tobacco abuse vs the tax collected. Of course if drugs were legalized the cost of fighting drug use would go down.

And the cost of crime to fund that drug habit? Up or Down?

There would be a tax on the drugs and shops would decide whether or not they want to absorb it or pass it on to the consumer.

If you were running a business, would you pay tax on behalf of the consumer or would you want to pass it on?

Who will open up a drug shop if they know that the competitor down the road will immediately slash 50% of his price?

They should have to apply for a license to sell controlled substances, previous convictions would be held against them of course.

So they'll scrounge off the state because they can't get a job? Wow! More money for the taxpayer.

It seems that with every new reply, we just have to keep adding up the cost of legalizing drugs...

Reply 203

squishy123

Original post by Redolent

But there is a difference in the sense that you know what you are doing can lead to your death and for selfish reasons, you are undertaking an activity which could be avoided.

And if it isn't an emergency, should it be illegal then?

Nope, because running is good. It helps you lose weight and takes some strain off the NHS by not wasting money on obese people.

We shouldn't be locking them up in the first place. It doesn't work. This has been proven in numerous studies.

Which study?

People don't stay in prison forever.

Also do you seriously not know about the dangers of withdrawal symptoms? Saying everyone should be forced against their will to go cold turkey is disgusting.

They made it their "personal choice to use the drug. Now they cannot complain when the state tries to get rid of their addiction.

No, they will both probably get lower. Even if they did stay the same, that would still be an argument in favour of legalisation/decriminalisation.

Justify your statement.

Good for them, they are still costing taxpayers money.

Personal choice vs necessity conjure up something for you?

Unless there is consensus, and there is pretty strong consensus when it comes to the flaws of government drug policy.

That may be so but it still doesn't mean that decriminalising is the "right way/process"....

He didn't endorse the report?! Are you being deliberately obtuse? He CHAIRED the report! I am actually in disbelief at some of the arguments you are trying to make.

Endorsing =/= Chairing.

He just presented the research. In fact, the only thing he said was that the current policy is flawed. How does that make it seem like he "endorsed" the report?

You still haven't given me examples of countries which successfully implement the policy that you think he is talking about.

Wouldn't health insurance be more practical as well as a hospital funded by those who want to take drugs preferably built in the moorlands of Broadmoor?

What % of tax would you be willing to pay for to satisfy yourself for a few minutes?

I never claimed that, however they would be lower than they are now.

Okay.

It seems you clearly haven't thought this through.

There is no such research, don't start bringing hypothetical scenarios into this it's bad enough already

Indulge me but even if you don't, then I already have my answer.

Reply 204

ESPORTIVA

Squishy you need to realize that human beings LIKE TAKING DRUGS.

We have been doing it for centuries and we'll continue to do it.

Nothing. Nothing will stop that.

Sharia cant stop it.

The threat of prison hasn't stopped it.

The threat of violence and execution hasn't stopped it.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 205

Redolent

Original post by squishy123

But there is a difference in the sense that you know what you are doing can lead to your death and for selfish reasons, you are undertaking an activity which could be avoided.

All of this applies to running down stairs faster than you need to (when there isn't an emergency that demands it)

Nope, because running is good. It helps you lose weight and takes some strain off the NHS by not wasting money on obese people.

really? telling people to sprint downstairs saves the NHS money and stops people getting obese? ridiculous.

Which study?

the one in the first post and many others I have seen. You are making me back up all of my arguments with proof all the while having none for your own.

"There are numerous economic and social impacts of the criminalization of drugs. Prohibition increases crime (theft, violence, corruption) and drug price and increases potency. In many developing countries the production of drugs offers a way to escape poverty. Milton Friedman estimated that over 10,000 deaths a year in the US are caused by the criminalization of drugs, and if drugs were to be made legal innocent victims such as those shot down in drive by shootings, would cease or decrease. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_liberalization#Drug_re-legalization
http://mises.org/daily/2269

They made it their "personal choice to use the drug. Now they cannot complain when the state tries to get rid of their addiction.

They can if the state's methods are likely to kill them

Justify your statement.

One leads to greater social liberties, the other does not.

Personal choice vs necessity conjure up something for you?

It is never "necessary" for somebody to eat so much they become obese, end of.

That may be so but it still doesn't mean that decriminalising is the "right way/process"....

yes it does. see below: the case study of Portugal

Endorsing =/= Chairing.

He just presented the research. In fact, the only thing he said was that the current policy is flawed. How does that make it seem like he "endorsed" the report?

You cannot chair a report without endorsing it, unless your goal is to show the world what an incompetent chair you are.

You still haven't given me examples of countries which successfully implement the policy that you think he is talking about.

Portugal has both decriminalised small scale drug use without any real consequences and many benefits

""Judging by every metric, decriminalization in Portugal has been a resounding success," says Glenn Greenwald, an attorney, author and fluent Portuguese speaker, who conducted the research. "It has enabled the Portuguese government to manage and control the drug problem far better than virtually every other Western country does.""
""The impact in the life of families and our society is much lower than it was before decriminalization," says Joao Castel-Branco Goulao, Portugual's "drug czar" and president of the Institute on Drugs and Drug Addiction, adding that police are now able to re-focus on tracking much higher level dealers and larger quantities of drugs."
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html

"Five years later, the number of deaths from street drug overdoses dropped from around 400 to 290 annually, and the number of new HIV cases caused by using dirty needles to inject heroin, cocaine and other illegal substances plummeted from nearly 1,400 in 2000 to about 400 in 2006"
"Spain and Italy have also decriminalized personal use of drugs and Mexico's president has proposed doing the same."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=portugal-drug-decriminalization

It is a proven effective policy. Just face it.

Wouldn't health insurance be more practical as well as a hospital funded by those who want to take drugs preferably built in the moorlands of Broadmoor?

No, a simple duty tax would be far more practical than that.

What % of tax would you be willing to pay for to satisfy yourself for a few minutes?

none of your business

It seems you clearly haven't thought this through.

I have, which is why I am backing up my claims with actual scientific research and economic proofs while you have absolutely nothing but your own intuitions

Indulge me but even if you don't, then I already have my answer.

If there was valid research which showed decriminalisation leads to more problems then, yes, I would stop claiming it does not. however, evidence shows it does not, so that doesn't matter.

Reply 206

noneofthemknew

Original post by squishy123

Would you classify drugs to give you relaxation as a necessity or luxury?

I don't think it's as clear cut as that, the classification of everything into 'necessity' and 'luxury' is far too simplistic a way of looking at a very complex issue.

Original post by squishy123

Check out Singapore, Malaysia and these guys are right next to teh Golden Triangle. Their whole countries should be addicted to opium considering their proximity.

What does that have to do with my point that harsher punishments are ineffective in combating drug use and abuse?

Original post by squishy123

And yet 40% still don't pay tax and are sold on the Black Market. Well done, you've destroyed you're own tax argument.

40% is significantly better than 100%, as is happening at the minute in this country, how can you not see that? Obviously dicriminalisation is not perfect but all evidence shows, and I think this is about the 5th time you've been told this: that dicriminalisation is at the worst no worse than criminalisation and at best significantly better.

Original post by squishy123

Do they not need to spend extra on enforcement costs/regulation costs/vetting costs/rehabiliation costs/NHS costs????????

Yes but there would be considerably less money spent on busting street dealers/smugglers/cannabis farms etc as well as the money gained from duty tax. The amount of money gained/lost depends on the details of how the policy is implemented, but the principles behind decriminalisation, that the state is better off not telling people what they can put in their own bodies, are sound.

Original post by squishy123

How much tax would you be willing to pay on £20 (excluding VAT) worth of drugs?