Should drug abuse be treated as a criminal issue or a public health matter?

Poll

Should low-level drug abuse be treated as a criminal issue or a public health matter?

Under the current Misuse of Drugs Act, an individual can be prosecuted for possession of a classified substance, even if they have no intent to supply it and it's only a small amount. The current 1971 law has been seen by many as outdated and unfit for purpose, and I completely agree with that. Many drug addicts are refusing to get rehabilitation support due to a fear of being reported to the police, and evidence from countries such as Portugal has shown that the decriminalisation of drugs for personal use has made addicts far more comfortable to get treatment and has resulted in the number of drug related deaths going down by around 2/3 since the law there was changed in the early 2000s. The Scottish government supports decriminalising low level drug possession for exactly this reason, but at the same time the Home Office has repeatedly refused to change the current law, giving the same near-identical excuse every time that "drugs harm lives and communities", while the tough approach they prefer does exactly the same in my opinion. I believe that they have also fired leading advisers in the past for challenging the current approach on possession.

What do you think drug abuse should be treated as? You can vote in the poll or comment below.

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

Ciel.

Original post by RJDG14

of course it shouldn't be treated as a criminal issue.

Reply 2

Bang Outta Order

Criminals who get health assistance.

Like always. They go to jail and then are suggested or admitted/transferred to hospital or mental ward or rehab clinic. Or go to regular jail and get monitored.

Reply 3

Ciel.

Original post by Bang Outta Order

Criminals who get health assistance.

Like always. They go to jail and then are suggested or admitted/transferred to hospital or mental ward or rehab clinic. Or go to regular jail and get monitored.

not impressed with your answer. 🙄

Both.

What do you mean? Do you mean it should be simultaneously be treated as both, or as one for softer drugs and the other for hard drugs?

I'm not talking about dealing, which should definitely remain illegal as it is at the moment, but from all the evidence I've read I see low level use to be soley a public health rather than criminal issue. Giving somebody a criminal record that will last a lifetime for something where ultimately they were the only victim makes no sense, and will deter these people from getting help to quit.

(edited 4 years ago)

Reply 6

Bio 7

Using should mot be illegal, it’s your choice to take it (usually) and it should be a health matter.
Dealing should remain an illegal act.

What would help is legalising them and regulating.

Reply 7

Chicken.M.

ye it's quite bad that you can get ****faced on alcohol and go to the hospital, but can't do it for any other drug.

Reply 8

Napp

Original post by Bio 7

Using should mot be illegal, it’s your choice to take it (usually) and it should be a health matter.
Dealing should remain an illegal act.

What would help is legalising them and regulating.

If memory serves using it technically isnt an offence, only the possession of it is, a rather odd quirk in the law.

Reply 9

Napp

Original post by Bang Outta Order

Criminals who get health assistance.

In what universe does this make sense?

Reply 10

the beer

Original post by RJDG14

I'm not talking about dealing, which should definitely remain illegal as it is at the moment

Meh, what's the point if users are still going to have to go to criminals to get dirty contaminated drugs.

Reply 11

the beer

Original post by Bio 7

Dealing should remain an illegal act.

What would help is legalising them and regulating.

What are you legalising and regulating if not the sale?

Reply 12

username4986690

The criminalisation of drugs hasn't worked as a deterrence and has cost the Government billions to maintain a failing regime.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result. It is time to try a different approach, ideally one we could taxate in order to pay for the health treatments.

Reply 13

Bang Outta Order

Original post by Napp

In what universe does this make sense?

Stop tryna play the big man with me cutie cos you never would off line. You dress like Dr. Who.

Clearly it makes sense, what is wrong with you. It's confusing to you because you're academically arrogant yet lack total common sense about reality. They get locked up if they're seen with drug possession with or without the intent to sell. If they have an addiction they are monitored in jail or sent to rehab...

Therefore, it is treated criminally but they also get health assistance...why is that hard for you to understand??

Original post by the beer

Meh, what's the point if users are still going to have to go to criminals to get dirty contaminated drugs.

Mhm. That's one reason it's illegal now. Makes sense. Drug taking should continue to be criminalised, though I think it's a sort of victim blaming copout to not go after drug dealers. Since they never do.

Reply 14

Bang Outta Order

@Ciel. Like I said: They get locked up if they're seen with drug possession with or without the intent to sell. If they have an addiction they are monitored in jail or sent to rehab...

Therefore, it is treated criminally but they also get health assistance...simple to understand.