Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Changes For This ReadingThe changes made are that the wording of 3.7 - making the unlicensed supply of drugs an offence - has been improved to bring it more into line with the wording used in RL legislation. In addition, the public injection or snorting of drugs has been made illegal (Section 5).

    The numbering on Section 2 has been fixed, as has the numbering in Section 3 (oops!). Also, the mistake that said advertising was legal as tobacco, instead of illegal has been corrected. The wording on Section 6 (Duties) has been clarified to reflect that only the duty for narcotics shall be phased in, the new duties for alcohol and tobacco shall be implemented immediately upon completion of the inquiry. (The purpose of phasing the duty in is such that we can destroy the infrastructure of the black market that currently exists, so that when the duty is in, the start-up costs make it unprofitable to attempt to undercut legal drugs. It's the same approach America used in ending prohibition and it worked very well).


    Arguements ForI'd like to put forward some of the major arguments that I failed to reply to in the previous readings. The point of making drugs legal is not because they are somehow a force for good, but that making them illegal is not a solution that is even near to working. We intercept less than 1% of the drugs coming into the country, so we do not even come close to stopping the drugs trade happening. Let us be clear, anyone who wants drugs can get them. We let people sell them with no regulation or labelling of any of the effects, recommended dose or strength of the drug labelled. Consumers do not now what they are getting, and this means that no only are people harming themselves through dangerous chemicals that drugs are often cut with, but also that when they get a god batch, they can easily accidentally overdose. We treat addiction as a criminal problem, throwing the most vulnerable people into jail, not helping them deal with their addiction. We push the prices up hugely, which means that people with addictions can't manage them, thus increasing the amount of petty crime needed to fuel addictions. Not only that, but more crime comes from the gangs who fund their way through the sale of drugs, not to mention turf wars.

    Yes, drugs can be dangerous and can ruin lives, but people must be able to make their own choices, and we shouldn't criminalise those who aren't doing any harm to others. A victimless crime should not be a crime at all, especially when by making it one, we're costing every family in the region of £400 per year, pushing crime up and making it a hell of a lot harder for those who do have trouble with addictions and the like. We benefit no-one by keeping them illegal. It is not to underestimate or downplay the harm that drugs can do, but to look for the best solution.


    B397 - Narcotics Bill 2011, TSR Libertarian Party



    Legalisation of Narcotics, Duty Reform and VAT Reduction Act 2011

    An Act to legalise, tax and regulate the narcotics industry - ending the fruitless and futile 'war on drugs' - and using the money saved from formerly 'fighting drugs' and the tax gained from the whole industry being brought into the formal sector, to reduce the level of VAT.

    BE IT ENACTED by The Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:-

    Part I: Narcotics
    1 Legalisation of Narcotics
    (1) Drugs Act 2005 is hereby repealed.
    (2) Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001 is hereby repealed.
    (3) Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 is hereby repealed.
    (4) Drug Trafficking Act 1994 is hereby repealed.
    (5) Sections 61-64 Crime and Disorder Act 1998 are hereby repealed.
    (6) Sections 50(4), 68(3) and 170(3) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 are hereby repealed.
    (7) Controlled Drugs (Penalties) Act 1985 is hereby repealed.

    2 Narcotics
    (1) There shall be kept a list of narcotics.
    (2) This list shall initially consist of substances that, prior to the implementation of this Act, were illegal, but can be amended by the Secretary of State for Home Affairs.
    (3) For each substance on the list, there will be a standardised dose.
    (4) For the purposes of this Act, henceforth, 'narcotics' refers to the substances of the list as set out in section 2(1), and 'standardised dose' refers to the amount in the list referred to in 2(1) and the dose referred to in section 2(3).

    3 Point of Sale
    (1) Narcotics may only be sold in pharmacies registered with the General Pharmaceutical Company.
    (2) Narcotics may only be sold 'over the counter' subject to the same regulation as class P substances under the Medicines Act 1968.
    (3) Narcotics may not be sold to any persons under the age of 18.
    (4) Narcotics may not be sold to intoxicated persons, or a person deemed unfit to be taking said narcotic in their current state, at the discretion of the seller.
    (5) Any narcotics sold must have the following:
    (a) clear warnings printed on the packaging specifying the health risks;
    (b) they must meet Food Standards Authority regulations for purity and must have all ingredients listed on the packaging;
    (c) they must be sold in standardised doses, and no individual may purchase more than two standard doses from a shop on the same day;
    (d) if the substance being sold is for intravenous use, a new, sterile needle must be provided.
    (e) the purity/strength of the drug must be clearly labelled.
    (f) information on the services available to help treat addiction.
    (6) Advertising of narcotics is illegal and subject to the same regulations as tobacco, as defined in the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002.
    (7) Unlicensed supply of narcotics is an offence liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years or an unlimited fine, or both.

    4 Rehabilitation Services
    (1) There shall be a dedicated, 24 hour, telephone service and website with advice on cessation of narcotics usage.
    (2) This shall provide support and materials to those trying to cease the use of narcotics.
    (3) Where drug replacement therapy is appropriate, it shall be available on prescription.

    5 Public Use
    (1) Intravenous, intramuscular and subcutaneous injection of narcotics on public property is an offence liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
    (2) Insufflation of narcotics on public property is an offence liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

    Part II: Tax
    6 Duties
    (1) An inquiry shall be set up to establish the costs to society from the usage of alcohol, tobacco and narcotics.
    (2) This inquiry shall take into account changes in the costs from the terms of this Bill.
    (3) Upon completion of the inquiry, alcohol and tobacco duties shall be levied at the recommended rate from the inquiry.
    (4) Upon completion of the initial inquiry, the duty for narcotics shall initially be levied at 1/3 of the recommended rates from the inquiry.
    (5) One year after the completion of the initial inquiry, the duty for narcotics shall be levied at 2/3 of the recommended rates from the inquiry.
    (6) Two years after the completion of the initial inquiry, the duty for narcotics shall be levied at the recommended rates from the inquiry.
    (7) A new inquiry shall be held every 5 years.

    7 VAT
    (1) In section 2(1) of VATA 1994 (rate of VAT), for “20 per cent” substitute “17.5 per cent”.

    Part III: Miscellaneous
    8 Short Title
    (1) This Act may be cited as the Narcotics Act 2011.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    What is the logic behind the staggered rates of duty in the period following the inquiry?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CLS94)
    What is the logic behind the staggered rates of duty in the period following the inquiry?
    From the introductory part: The purpose of phasing the duty in is such that we can destroy the infrastructure of the black market that currently exists, so that when the duty is in, the start-up costs make it unprofitable to attempt to undercut legal drugs. It's the same approach America used in ending prohibition and it worked very well.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    What about the danger of Britain becoming a "drugs tourist" destination for black marketeers around the world and helping send drugs to other countries? Wouldn't a more effective approach be to eliminate the global drugs network, while legalising to negate the allure for the black market?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ElectricChomsky)
    What about the danger of Britain becoming a "drugs tourist" destination for black marketeers around the world and helping send drugs to other countries? Wouldn't a more effective approach be to eliminate the global drugs network, while legalising to negate the allure for the black market?
    If people wish to come here and take drugs, I don't see why we should have the double standards of one rule for us, and another for them. It would be hard for sellers to accumulate enough drugs to make it worth selling, with the buying restriction of two standard doses per day. Furthermore (though legislation is not the place for it), our customs officials will work with others if it is deemed to be a problem.

    In addition, I'd urge others governments to legalise drugs in their own countries if they do not wish for drugs to be entering their shores illegally.

    As for the black market claim, let us realise that it is cheaper for them to export from their bases where the drugs are produced, rather than buying at a retail value with tax, and then exporting. I really don't see that ever becoming an issue.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Don't suppose I could offer an amendment to treat alcohol the same way?

    Otherwise it seems Lib's have thought this through.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ElectricChomsky)
    Don't suppose I could offer an amendment to treat alcohol the same way?

    Otherwise it seems Lib's have thought this through.
    In terms of the costs, treating alcohol in this way would have a quite devastating effect with regards the closing of the pub industry. The effect on unemployment means that it's not a viable option, especially at a time when so many people are struggling.
    Offline

    15
    It looks the same as before albeit with minor changes that don't bother me so aye... once again
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Division!!
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: September 30, 2011
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?

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

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