Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Just following on from Frazz's question about the legal status of cannabis in the UK.

When it comes to Drugs, the UK has a classification system which, to my knowledge, is A-D, with A being utterly completely and totally illegal 'get caught with it and you're buggered' stuff (Heroin, Cocaine, Crack etc) and D being readily bought over the counter without requiring a prescription.

Now this to me is flawed. In particular, Cannabis was recently reclassified to 'C', meaning you require a prescription to have it, but are unlikely to get arrested for posession, unless they believe you have intent to supply. However, I think it might have been shifted back to 'B' (you will get arrested for posession, but most likely released if it's a 'personal' amount).

Why bother with the A and B classifcations? If they are illegal, they should be illegal, and carrying, using or supplying should be treated in exactly the same manner to my mind. This clears up confusion somewhat. Of course, the flipside is that legalising ALL 'hard' drugs would drop crime rates, and take a lot of money out of international arseholes (Taleban, Colombian Drug Barons etc) arguably making the world a safer place. Whack a similar degree of Tax on them and bosh, several problems solved, some merely addressed, and largely more controlable ones created (people smuggling legal stuff out of the UK to countries where it's illegal).

I guess I'm just not really a fan of 'middle ground' laws when it comes to substances. Either make it all fully illegal, or treat it like other damaging, mind altering drugs (yes, I mean Caffeine, Nicotine and Alcohol) and just tax it to buggery and let the people decide??

What are your thoughts on this? I'm guessing I'm missing a fair amount of information, so as ever feel free to post up links, data, info etc to help either or both sides to this.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/drugs/drugs-law/Class-a-b-c/ Just so we're all singing from the same sheet.

I always thought making LSD class A was a little harsh, but then I would.

Yespleasethankyou matey!

Cheers george, but i think its flawed.
All counts of dealing any substance should result in a life sentance.

Fair enough. But...care to explain why matey? You're normally a bit more wordy in your posts, and this early on I like to explore peoples thoughts!

Not really an amazing answer from me this time, but when you think of how many people pretty much lose thier lives due to gak sold by dealers.
Then you look at the punishment, it looks fething weak.

May seem harsh, but what price do you put on human lives these days?
Even though such people know the risks of drugs and still do them, without a dealer present it would start to kill off the habit.
Dealers pretty much prey on a weak minded person to gain thier money in life, people like this should be given life, and by life i mean life, not 25.

Mainly this could be due to me losing a friend a while back due to his habits, but ive allways tended to have this harsh view of things.


If it was up to me, i would bring back birching and public hangings, but we will save that for another day

HEhehe.

I see where you are coming from. Personally, I am of the opinion that the classification system actually aids pushers*. You treat one softly, and that becomes the entry drug. From there, once ensconce amongst other drug abusers, it's easy to press someone into something actually addictive.

*I do make a differentiation between a Dealer and a Pusher. A dealer I say is someone who only sells what is asked for, and doesn't try to flog you extras.

The classification system partly relates to the toxicity of the different substances.

For example, it's practically impossible to kill yourself by smoking pot, and it's easier to do it by injecting heroin.

Of course it's easier still to OD on Paracetamol or booze, so the classification also reflects a general social or governmental bias against the 'harder' drugs.

Past experience shows that many drug toxicity problems arisen from adulterated street drugs and shared needles, etc. Licensed distribution would remove those problems.

I think legalizing all of them would probably be the best option. Reduce crime (by a hell of a lot), increase personal freedom.

Still restrictions in place for sale to minors and such, although really, you're better off teaching them what the physiological effects of it are than trying stop them from getting any supply.

I agree with what MDG is saying about it either being legal or illegal, though. If the law was less absurd (in response to weed especially) then it could be enforced more strongly, and maybe there could be a pinch more respect for it.

Also a lot more danger in it for those using, arguable keeping it's use out of public places where the effects on the user can prove either dangerous or just unpleasent.

There are some problems with legalizing everything. Such as the morons, you all know them, who will leave it lying in front of their kids, smoke crack while pregnant etc. etc.

Yea I'm a fan of the system of legalizing everything however thats not to say there wouldn't be problems but imo it'd be a lesser evil than the status quo. People are going to do what they want with their bodies - just tax the hell out of the harsher drugs and keep the money in the system rather than in the black market.

As for having poisonous or harmful substances in the household, most already do in terms of cleaning products, firearms, legal drugs, etc.

EDIT: Meant 'hell' not 'health'

The problem with taxation to reduce buyer market is suppliers aint going to be happy, no one will bother selling drugs via legal means if they can make more profit and sell more volume illegaly.

And no before you mention it. the tax on alcohol and tobacco, although high, hardly prevents people from buying it. I am asuming you mean a higher tax than that.

Yet one could say that legalised Drugs, even with the Tac slapped on, coul dbe cheaper than their Black Market versions. Less people involved in the chain looking to make their cut, and generally less greed.

On the whole, Black Market equivalents of Ciggies and Booze aren't massive slices of the consumption of said consumables. Sure they make a tax hit for the Government, but people seem to prefer the legal, taxed ones. With drugs, provided few other countries legalised them, it would be even less likely. Do you either pay over the counter, and be assured of good quality with no real dangerous stuff cut into it, or trust some backstreet mook who has cut it with christ knows what?

whatwhat wrote:The problem with taxation to reduce buyer market is suppliers aint going to be happy, no one will bother selling drugs via legal means if they can make more profit and sell more volume illegaly.

And no before you mention it. the tax on alcohol and tobacco, although high, hardly prevents people from buying it. I am asuming you mean a higher tax than that.

Hmm.. if there's one thing we've learnt it's that people will pay for ease of use. Pre roled ciggies outsell rollin' baccy ans skins by a huge amount nationally..and that's even including the skins bought by tab smokers for their spiff goodness when they get home/wherever as well.

I would agree that simply legalising wouldn't magically solve issues. The tax revenue and ability to redirect law enforcement officers woudl help a lot I'm sure, but there's a lot to be said for having more control over something through legalisation that turning a blind eye as is the way often currently.

Plus it's much easier to justify harsher punishments if there are legal or at least socially approved alternatives.

I don't know anyonw who was ever done over by the babylon for lending or showing a video cassette for example, whilst ILLEGAL FILE SHARERS get busted ( or elected to be fair ) every fething week.

I was meaning taxes brought in to restrict drug use. i.e. to prevent people buying it because of the expense. Which is the reason they slap on most cigarette and alcohol tax hikes.

I imagine selling drugs at lower than their current black market price would give you a whole new load of ethical issues. The main one being the guy who had no moral issues with the drug, just the price and the dodgy people he had to get it from.

In other words, some would say, by legalising you are opening drugs up to a whole new market who's main issue with illegal drugs was not their harmfull effects, but the fact that they were illegal, hard to obtain etc. Alcohol and Cigarette use proves there are a large number of these people when you consider alcohol is more dangerous than many illegal drugs.

Just a thought here, but why do people think making them legal will solve problems?
Make them legal and you lead to a whole new era of people being hooked on drugs, ending up unemployed and then having to resort to other means of making money.
This would lead to the crime rate rising by a fething lot and very quickly.
This would also lead to younger children becomming hooked on drugs aswell, just as they do with smoking now.

If anything could feth this country up even worse than it allready is then this would do the job.

JD21290 wrote:

If anything could feth this country up even worse than it allready is then this would do the job.

I know its a joke but I recommend this idea: Jeremy Clarkson as prime minister! I would love to see that although the best show on the planet would be no more without his presence.

I will second this idea of clarkson being prime minister.
Hammond and stig should also gain a seat of power.
May gets to be head of some farming community.

JD21290 wrote:Just a thought here, but why do people think making them legal will solve problems?

Because the evidence shows it would.

Evidence has also lead to innocent people being thrown in jail, its not allways right krazy.
And lets face it, no plan survives contact, only way to find out i guess would be to try it.

Let them have their drugs . Those unfit to work while high and stoned should be fired , replaced with normal and competent workers.

FTGG

Here's a little something I posted on another thread that shows why I think laws should be enforced and people using drugs punished in some way:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Mexico

One of my friends got his family out of Mexico because the drug cartels have turned his area of the country into a Hell hole. No one dares say anything against these guys. His brother had his car taken by a low level member of one of the cartels and was told to let it pass because he'd be killed if he went to the cops. These are the kind of people getting control and they are supported in very large part by the drug trade.
As far as the argument about making pot legal, there's always another drug that people will be saying should be made legal using the prohibition argument.

I think perhaps jailing wouldn't work as well as putting someone under special arrest with an anklet and showing them movies of areas affected by cartels and drug lords so they can see what they're contributing to when they buy illicit drugs. After that, a nice stint helping people that have been affected by drug crime in some way or or doing social work in an area controled by gangs that are supported in large part by drug money could be an eye opener.
It would be more productive than slapping someone into a cell and perhaps save taxpayer dollars.

The drug cartels would dissolve if drugs weren't illegal, though. There would be no profit left.

And once the cartels have no profit in drugs, they move onto another action in which to make money.

Orkeosaurus wrote:The drug cartels would dissolve if drugs weren't illegal, though. There would be no profit left.

I used to live in a crack house, and can tell you first hand there's a real good reason drugs are illegal.

JD21290 wrote:And once the cartels have no profit in drugs, they move onto another action in which to make money.

Yeah, but they won't be making as much money.

Drugs are the best blackmarket there is, that's why everyone's in them.

Relapse wrote:I used to live in a crack house, and can tell you first hand there's a real good reason drugs are illegal.

I don't doubt that crack's bad for you, but the prohibition didn't stop the formation of that house, at the very least.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

JD21290 wrote:And once the cartels have no profit in drugs, they move onto another action in which to make money.

Yeah, but they won't be making as much money.

Drugs are the best blackmarket there is, that's why everyone's in them.

Relapse wrote:I used to live in a crack house, and can tell you first hand there's a real good reason drugs are illegal.

I don't doubt that crack's bad for you, but the prohibition didn't stop the formation of that house, at the very least.

The stuff that happened there went beyond the lowest dive that sells alcohol. You definitely don't want that kind of crap going on anywhere your kids would be living or going. There was a lot more than just crack happening at that place. The funny thing was that a lot of the people there went on about how they were free to do what they wanted. It ended up boiling down that the only freedom they had was to be incompetent no lifers or commiting suicide.

It was bad enough seeing adults flushing themselves down the toilet, but seeing them take their kids with them was a real pisser. No one thought twice about their kids living next to or in an apartment where they were brewing up meth, and I saw kids sitting in the middle of the room as everyone fired up crack pipes around them.

This is the kind of thing that will be happening a lot more if that crap ever gets made legal. It happens too much with it being illegal, from what I've witnessed.

Orkeosaurus wrote:I think legalizing all of them would probably be the best option. Reduce crime (by a hell of a lot), increase personal freedom.

Still restrictions in place for sale to minors and such, although really, you're better off teaching them what the physiological effects of it are than trying stop them from getting any supply.

I agree with what MDG is saying about it either being legal or illegal, though. If the law was less absurd (in response to weed especially) then it could be enforced more strongly, and maybe there could be a pinch more respect for it.

I am more of this frame of mind nowadays, but I still cant help but wonder if it would actually be any better if it were ALL legalized.

JD21290 wrote:Evidence has also lead to innocent people being thrown in jail, its not allways right krazy.
And lets face it, no plan survives contact, only way to find out i guess would be to try it.

There's a different between scientific research, which can be mathematically tested, and 'evidence' as the term is used in a court of law.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wrexasaur wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:I think legalizing all of them would probably be the best option. Reduce crime (by a hell of a lot), increase personal freedom.

Still restrictions in place for sale to minors and such, although really, you're better off teaching them what the physiological effects of it are than trying stop them from getting any supply.

I agree with what MDG is saying about it either being legal or illegal, though. If the law was less absurd (in response to weed especially) then it could be enforced more strongly, and maybe there could be a pinch more respect for it.

I am more of this frame of mind nowadays, but I still cant help but wonder if it would actually be any better if it were ALL legalized.

At various periods of British history gin and opium were completely uncontrolled. Gin caused a lot more social degradation. I would favour legalising drugs within a sensible framework such as age restrictions, sale only through chemists, penalties for mis-use and the like.