We might imagine (arguably naively) that certain drugs are illegal because we must be protected from the harm that they can do us. The primary reason for enforcing the drug laws must be to prevent us from acquiring these drugs and thus protect us from harm. It is not certain that the rise in the wholesale price of cocaine is causally related to the authorities making it more difficult for those that trade in the drug; the decrease in the strength of the pound may also be a factor. It could be that this is an ill-founded claim made to create good PR for drugs enforcement worldwide. But if the rise in price can be put down to enforcement, it seems that the effect of enforcement has not been to protect the public from a harmful substance but to make the harmful substance that the public are managing quite easily to acquire more harmful by reducing its purity.This may not be the only the only effect of work of drugs enforcement agencies (cue wild conjecture): it may be that their activities are making the business of trading in drugs more perilous than it already is by frustrating supply routes. Perhaps it has resulted in more drugs-trade-related deaths. If they have been at all successful then it will have resulted in more people having to spend time in jail, more people's lives being branded criminal.
If these are the effects of enforcing the drugs laws then what is the point? How can making cocaine more dangerous be good news?
In Portugal, there are no criminal penalties for possessing personal quantities of drugs. This policy has been successful in reducing the number of people taking drugs and increasing the number of people with drugs problems seeking treatment.Decriminalising the trade in drugs would be another thing entirely. It is fraught because it would mean that governments themselves were selling or, at least, sanctioning drugs. But if the only effect of enforcing the current drugs laws is to make taking drugs more dangerous and not to decrease their availability, it may be time for the authorities to desist. If the trade were decriminalised then young people would not find themselves inducted into an illicit market and made criminals.
It would be impossible for a country to do this unilaterally. But it seems that much of the harm done by illegal drugs is a product of their being illegal and it must be worth thinking about changing this state of affairs.
I have not previously known what I think about the illegality of drugs. In this piece I try on an opinion that is fresh and new to me. It should not be taken that what is written above is the pure revealed essence of What I Think On The Matter.
8 comments:
Legalize, tax, and then use to promote safe havens for drug use and educational programmes and a culture of use.
Plus i'm pretty sure that if you get rid of inequality, you'll also significantly reduce the neeed for people to take drugs. As the distortion between expectations and reality which can dive drug use will disappear. Not that all people take drugs, but there is a strong correlation between socio-economic postion, education and drug use.
Also the key factor in this is, this is the government telling people what is, or is not good for them, when people know themselves what is best for themselves.
I don't know what would happen if drugs were completely legalised in the way that you suggest. We're fond of saying that drugs are readily available to anyone but probably most people in the UK do not know how to get hold of drugs. Legalising and taxing drugs would vastly broaden their availability. This would be a big change and I do not think that it is clear what its affect would be.
What does seem clear is that the current state of affairs with respect to the enforcement of drugs laws is bad.
So, in sum, what I am doing, limply, is to offer a criticism of the current system without offering any ideas for how it might be changed.
"but probably most people in the UK do not know how to get hold of drugs"
I aggree that legalisation of drugs will broaden their avaiability. However, the groups of people for which drugs become a problem are the ones who have no problems accessing drugs at the moment.
People who do not know how to gain access to drugs are most likely people who are not interested in drugs full stop. I doubt legalising them is going to have the grannies rushing down to the newsagents (or where ever) to buy some E's to go with there afternoon Crossword.
Legalisation will allow the governments to garner tax revenues which can be used to combat the adverse effects. To help the people who do get caught up in drugs. The same people who have no problem accessing drugs at the moment.
Imagine what the revenue could do for Mr Mackie's "Drugs are bad" policy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCDnR6Px-co&feature=related
Under legalisation the outlets for the legal sale of drugs would have to be sufficiently widespread and their wares competitively priced to stop an illicit trade re-emerging. Their distribution across the country would have to be denser than Royal Mail depots, which can be an arse to get to, but probably not as dense as Subways.
In the short term I imagine BBC news doing a semi-humorous report about some middle-aged people trying out MDMA in their living room. There may also be reports of some American frat boys coming over and making a ruckus. There would also be stories about people having become addicts since legalisation and some people would get very excited and annoyed about this.
In the long term, after decades of drugs having been widely available, I don't think anyone knows the effects might be. Never before has a society arranged for such a comprehensive menu of recreational intoxicants to be within the grasp of all of its citizens.
But, then again, if it does turn out to be a huge problem, I'm sure the people of the future could sort something out (or their robots could). Cross that bridge when we come to it.
The problems that we have with the drug trade exist in the here and now. And no government would take legalisation lightly, they would proceed cautiously and find an arrangement with appropriate safeguards and so on.
As you say, the tax revenue from the sale of these drugs could be used to tell people that drugs are bad, m'kay. The trouble with those programmes is that, if they are honest, they have to explain that, yes, some people get addicted to drugs but basically drugs aren't that dangerous and more than likely you'll be fine if you take them. And if they're not honest... well they're not honest, which isn't a very nice thing for a government to be to its people.
I think some people (I'm not among them) would be worried that you would end up with a delirious, coked up nation. This would be quite a funny last chapter for our dying empire.
Would add more but got to get some fucking work done now.
Cyphon88, is that '88' at the end of your name something innocent along the lines of the year that you were born or is it a neo-Nazi thing? You don't seem like a Nazi.
Alas, when i chose this name over half a decade ago as my internet psydoneum, I was unaware of the alternative connatations it could have. In fact i only discovered how the name could alternatively be interpreted in October. It seems i have an unfortunate preference for the sound of certain words, and an unfortunate birth year.
Still i'm not going to change my psydoneum because of some bloody fascists. Ironic how a Anarcho-syndicalist uses this name though.
With reference to suggested frat-boy invasions, I wonder what the general effect of legalisation would be on tourism. Drug-binge package holidays, anyone? Some say that Amsterdam's problems are largely due to its global profile.
I guess the logical answer is to legalise drugs in ALL countries. Simultaneously (presumably there'll be a commemorative celebration every year afterwards).
Apparently, the Portuguese were worried about drug tourism but it has never been a problem. But they only decriminalised possession in small quantities and somehow there was no publicity.
Post a Comment