Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Labour MP wants all drugs legally available Watch

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    What he is saying in essence is a step in the right direction.

    Suggesting the NHS foot the bill however is stupid. Unless of course the drug holds some medicinal value, such as cannabis for MS and whatnot.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thisisnew)
    .
    No one is saying that drugs aren't dangerous - a lot of them blatantly are.

    But the fact is, if I wanted crack cocaine, I could get some. But if I bought it off the street, it'd be cut with all sorts, making it much more dangerous then what could be produced more cheaply by the government. Plus, the amount that you'd make taxing each drug would be much more than what is required to support the medical costs of users on the NHS.

    Realistically, there would probably be a small increase in the rise of drug use, as people would be less concerned with getting into trouble and so forth. This is why I think it is important that physically addictive drugs are only available on prescription, to stop users getting dangerously hooked, and overdosing.

    We also need to give children a proper education regarding drugs, so they can make their own decisions. Pretty much everything I learned in those 'PSHE/Citizenship' classes was a lie. If we give them the facts, they could learn how to use drugs responsibly.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    i didn't realise i was quoting you, so ill keep it short as this is what? the third time lol


    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...se-than-heroin
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20...n-heroin-crack

    Facts/studies/factors etc

    Usual David Nutt as he knows how it is, i can only assume to didn't digest the documentary i linked in an earlier thread.



    Indeed, reading back as i am against some substances for personal and rational reasons i guess i am not for EVERY SINGLE DRUG EVER BEING EVERYWHERE FOR EVERYONE

    The softer drugs being legal are where im coming from although from experience i would call LSD, MDMA and Ketamine soft drugs as well as the rest.

    I do want to know though..

    If system could be put into place to allow those who wish to use substances to do so safely and freely, be in strapped into a chair in a nazi style drugs camp where you take drugs until you die or wherever you like in an orgy of slummy streets and criminal gangs counting wads of cash surrounded by breathing corpses of those who were only a little curious and are now addicts in a society gone wrong because of drugs.

    Point is, if it was either extreme of being a communist style controlled or as free as a bird...

    if you dont want to do drugs you dont do them, why will this effect you? You are by no means alone at all and nowhere near everyone will want to look at them let alone take them.

    Whats your problem with letting people who aren't content working a job for minimum wage but doing it anyway or going out and getting pissed with the lads and pulling birds or sitting in watching Hollyoaks or going to the gym and doing exercise or going to church or going to sports events and whatever else people do for fun or to 'get by'

    Why do YOU care?

    You have come in with social problems it will cause and criminals moving onto other things and people dying etc etc..

    I care because i support freedom of choice. The things i want to see legal, some of which i do not like at all on a personal level, are things i have seen abused with little consequence or used safely in the right environments or have tried myself, which is a far clearer picture for me than a website that was written by someone who, i think, has minimal real world experience and is jumping on assumptions and general research.

    No i am not qualified in any academic sense.. but you dont need a degree to be a film critic, you only need to watch the film.

    Theres people out there who are qualified, have taken the drugs and support the legalisation/decriminalisation.

    Thats enough for me.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thisisnew)
    1. As pointed out drug use, especially harder/addictive drugs, does in fact cause harm to other people through violence, stealing etc.=
    Those are indirect consequences. Child trafficking is not even on the same level as drug use. Drug use would mostly do self-harm whereas child trafficking you are harming others. By drinking alcohol, it causes people to be violent and the poor to steal. Should we delegalize alcohol? British scientist have stated that alcohol is worse than crack and heroin. The findings found that crack, crystal meth and heroin where most harmful to individuals. What right does the state have to stop an individual harming himself? Whereas, alcohol as well as crack cocaine was most harmful to society. The findings also showed alcohol to be the most harmful with a score of 72 whilst crack cocaine had a score of 54 and heroin a score of 55.

    This graph clearly demonstrates that alcohol does more harm to others than crack cocaine or heroin:



    Also, see where tobacco is on the graph and see where other drugs are.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Agree with the "softer" drugs, not quite as comfortable with Heroin and the like. It's a bit of a non issue in British politics, I think it'll take a smaller party making it the focus of the their campaign and gaining decent support before any of the biggest 3 parties even consider it. Even then i'm struggling to see it as a popular policy :dontknow:
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jimcatinnes)
    Yeah why not give them prescriptions on the NHS, then instead of them telling cancer patients "sorry, the drug you require is just too expensive and it would be uneconomical to give it to you" they can say "oh yeah about that drug you needed, we could have gotten it but that heroin addict over there needed his fix, maybe next time ey".
    How would handing the management of hard drugs to the already struggling NHS work?
    You are assuming the NHS dosen't spemd any money treating the results of using illegal drugs like blood poisoing, over dosing, muggings etc not to mention the cost of enforcing the drug laws including the cost of policing, judiciary and prisons.

    The issue is not will legaling drugs solve all drug related problems but will it reduce the problems illegal drugs are causing now? Countries like Portugal where drug use and pocession for individual use is legal has not caused any more problems like increasing drug use but has actually reduced it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
    Those are indirect consequences. Child trafficking is not even on the same level as drug use. Drug use would mostly do self-harm whereas child trafficking you are harming others. By drinking alcohol, it causes people to be violent and the poor to steal. Should we delegalize alcohol? British scientist have stated that alcohol is worse than crack and heroin. The findings found that crack, crystal meth and heroin where most harmful to individuals. What right does the state have to stop an individual harming himself? Whereas, alcohol as well as crack cocaine was most harmful to society. The findings also showed alcohol to be the most harmful with a score of 72 whilst crack cocaine had a score of 54 and heroin a score of 55.

    This graph clearly demonstrates that alcohol does more harm to others than crack cocaine or heroin:



    Also, see where tobacco is on the graph and see where other drugs are.
    Already addressed this in a different post. I used an example of child trafficking to show how ridiculous the notion is that we should legalize something because it will marginalize organized crime. As for harm to others it doesn't matter if it's directly or indirectly it's still harm to others isn't it? How about we legalize what is currently illegal arms trading then? Following your logic it doesn't directly harm anybody and any affects on people are indirect so it's fine, right?

    And I've already said that if alcohol was discovered today it would be made illegal. Alcohol is far too rooted into our society, history and traditions to be removed so it's pointless even trying to remove it. I'm all for tighter control on alcohol because alcohol abuse is out of control.

    Also you pro legalization people need to stop using alcohol as a comparison for the reasons stated above. Instead of talking about why something else is legal why don't you build up a case on the drugs you want legalizing with empirical evidence? And don't be so naive as to think should all drugs (yes all as the MP is suggesting) that people wouldn't abuse them and ignore the education/warning the same way people do to alcohol.

    Unless there's some revolution in the way we look at drugs or the effects of them then they are going to remain illegal because right now you people keep bringing up the same mundane and inadequate arguments and it's going to get you no where.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Bob Ainsworth speaks sense - when he is out of government. Am I the only person thinking: what's the point, Bob? You missed your opportunity to put your beliefs into action.

    Oh well, the media have the government by the balls. Government are afraid of doing anything that might make the media squeeze (yet don't cut off the hand).
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    surely there must be an alternative to legalisation of all drugs?
    Or is ainsworth enjoying the former lib dem priviledge of being able to say whatever the **** you want cos nobody cares anyway?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thisisnew)
    As for harm to others it doesn't matter if it's directly or indirectly it's still harm to others isn't it?
    So? I could easily make a environmental case about driving and smoking and state they indirectly harm others. Do you want to ban driving and smoking? There are countless of things that indirectly harm others.

    How about we legalize what is currently illegal arms trading then? Following your logic it doesn't directly harm anybody and any affects on people are indirect so it's fine, right?
    Seeing as am also for guns legalisation sure.

    And I've already said that if alcohol was discovered today it would be made illegal. Alcohol is far too rooted into our society, history and traditions to be removed so it's pointless even trying to remove it. I'm all for tighter control on alcohol because alcohol abuse is out of control.
    That's a poor justification. Many things have been deep rooted in our society and yet we have abandon them. If slavery was deep-rooted in our society, would you not want it abolished due it being deep-rooted in our society?

    Instead of talking about why something else is legal why don't you build up a case on the drugs you want legalizing with empirical evidence?
    We have and shown that it's a bit hypocritical and idiotic to illegalise some drugs claiming they do damage to others when the most harmful drug is still available.

    And don't be so naive as to think should all drugs (yes all as the MP is suggesting) that people wouldn't abuse them and ignore the education/warning the same way people do to alcohol.
    Hence we educate people. There are many countries that don't have a problem, we need to take a leaf out of their book. Lets be honest, we haven't really be that successful in education people e.g. sex education.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The government - any government - has very little mandate to dictate what people can or cannot do with their own bodies.

    Bob Ainsworth is largely correct. Shame he didn't have the balls to say this when he was relevant to the decision-making process.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
    Those are indirect consequences. Child trafficking is not even on the same level as drug use. Drug use would mostly do self-harm whereas child trafficking you are harming others. By drinking alcohol, it causes people to be violent and the poor to steal. Should we delegalize alcohol? British scientist have stated that alcohol is worse than crack and heroin. The findings found that crack, crystal meth and heroin where most harmful to individuals. What right does the state have to stop an individual harming himself? Whereas, alcohol as well as crack cocaine was most harmful to society. The findings also showed alcohol to be the most harmful with a score of 72 whilst crack cocaine had a score of 54 and heroin a score of 55.

    This graph clearly demonstrates that alcohol does more harm to others than crack cocaine or heroin:



    Also, see where tobacco is on the graph and see where other drugs are.

    Bear in mind when bringing up the social harm of alcohol in graphs like this, it's measured under legalised conditions consumed by the majority, whilst heroin, the next most dangerous substance, is only marginally less harmful to society despite being illegal and used by a tiny, tiny minority of people in comparison to alcohol. Legalising heroin without heavy restrictions would inevitably bring about social problems that would dwarf those created by alcohol.

    Research, like the study you pointed out there, can be used to form a powerful argument against legalisation.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FyreFight)
    Bear in mind when bringing up the social harm of alcohol in graphs like this, it's measured under legalised conditions consumed by the majority, whilst heroin, the next most dangerous substance, is only marginally less harmful to society despite being illegal and used by a tiny, tiny minority of people in comparison to alcohol. Legalising heroin without heavy restrictions would inevitably bring about social problems that would dwarf those created by alcohol.

    Research, like the study you pointed out there, can be used to form a powerful argument against legalisation.
    You are wrong in assuming that there will be more social harm that now if heroin was legalised.

    Portugal have legalised the personal use and pocession of a large number of drugs including heroin and there has not been an increase in drug related problems.

    A lot of problems illegal drugs cause are not to do with the physical or psychological effects of the drugs themselves but on the criminal activities that is needed to get the drugs from the grower to the end user and the end users' need to fund an expensive drug habit.

    Heroin in itself is not an expensive drug, its widely used in medicine for pain control. If it was cheap and easy to obtain, end users would not need to turn to crime to fund their habit.

    Many people before the 1900s were addicted to opiates, opiates was a common ingredient in many widely avaialble and cheap medicines. Addicts could function quite well because their habit cost pennies and they did not have to spend large amounts of time doing things to fund their habit like prostituition, robbery and drug dealing.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FyreFight)
    Bear in mind when bringing up the social harm of alcohol in graphs like this, it's measured under legalised conditions consumed by the majority, whilst heroin, the next most dangerous substance, is only marginally less harmful to society despite being illegal and used by a tiny, tiny minority of people in comparison to alcohol. Legalising heroin without heavy restrictions would inevitably bring about social problems that would dwarf those created by alcohol.

    Research, like the study you pointed out there, can be used to form a powerful argument against legalisation.
    On the contrary it is largely because it is illegal that causes the social harm. Much of that harm comes through crime to fund the drug habit. This is because heroin is so expensive? Why? Because not many people are willing to take the risk of supplying the drug if there wasn't massive profits to be had, so the price is high, the drug is addictive and thus the only way to fuel that addiction is turn to crime. Furthermore, to get the drug they must deal with criminals, often from organised gangs; and that gives people another step onto the crime ladder. You legalise, you reduce the price and increase the purity, you stop the contact with crime and you reduce the social harm a huge amount.

    It's also another thing to assume that usage will go up. Evidence from Portugal when drugs were decriminalised shows that "Lifetime heroin use among 16-to-18-year-olds fell from 2.5% to 1.8% (although there was a slight increase in marijuana use in that age group). New HIV infections in drug users fell by 17% between 1999 and 2003, and deaths related to heroin and similar drugs were cut by more than half." The reason there should be no increase in usage is because legalising doesn't make drugs more available, they are oh so available now. This documentary is eye-opening in that respect.

    In the UK, pilot schemes where heroin has been given to addicts has been a roaring success. It has cut street drug supply and crime on a huge scale in those areas. This article and the interview are both enlightening. To pick up on one staggering line from that article: "Research suggests that between half and two-thirds of all crime in the UK is drug-related." Now tell me the social harm isn't down to the high prices. Madness.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    The labour MP sure knows how to get his poll ratings "high" from the youth,
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I think we'll look back in 30 years time and wonder why we hadn't decriminalised soft drugs sooner.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thisisnew)
    -.
    1. It is not unreasonable to compare the harm done by a certain illegal drug to the harm done by alcohol. Why should we have such disparities in our laws? Is there any reason for our soft drugs' illegality other than taboo?
    2. In regards to your comment on the supposed cost to the government due to 'adverse reactions, overdose, education on the drugs, production & regulation' : I'm sure you know that the danger of drugs is vastly reduced if they are from a reliable source and are pure. The danger comes when a dealer changes supplier or a user changes dealer. A centralised supply with regulations would protect users much better. An environment where drugs are legalised would also mean a better education about their safe use, reducing stupid myths perpetuated by word of mouth. Someone once tried to tell me that smoking cannabis whilst tripping on acid would cause you to go blind, lol.
    You seem sceptical about people actually listening to guidelines etc. but have a look at the situation in Portugal since they decriminalised drug use and possession.
    http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/gr...whitepaper.pdf
    3. Do you believe the war on drugs is working? Are you in favour of continuing to treat addiction as a criminal matter rather than, as the Netherlands and Portugal do, as a public health problem?
    4. Has anyone mentioned the environmental benefits of hemp crops?
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.