Does anybody here take the Greens seriously?

[AuroraSaab]

I'll take your word that they're as easy to get as a takeaway. I'm not sure that making even hard drugs easier still to get will help society in the long term. Very hard to put the toothpaste back in the tube once you go down that route.

 

[First Aspect]

Legalising something does not make it freely available. eg alcohol is legal but not freely availabel to everybody.

In effect all these drugs are already readily available. Easier to buy many than getting a take-away delivered. Except when you buy stuff now you don't actually know what you are buying and what you might be sold will often be laced with other stuff, stuff that isn't good (personal experience fortunately with only short term effects).

So situation now is a complete disaster so seems to me that it's very sensible to look at options and find better ways forward. What would constitute a better way forward I can't say and we'd need to take advice from those more expert in the field.

If that's the answer, then legalising and taxing achieves little, because the untaxed versions are still available.

Another issue with this approach is that it sends the message that use of a given substance is okay.

Again, the fact we have legally available alcohol, lots of messages from government that we shouldn't drink, and widespread alcohol abuse anyway rather tells you how hard it is to tell people not to do perfectly legal things.

There are much stronger arguments for decriminalising drug use.

 

[All uphill]

In line with my thoughts. We have lost the battle to control them, so, legalise, regulate and tax, just like the current legal drugs, alcohol and tobacco. Improve health education, and, if adults wish to take the risk, so be it.

It's seemed odd to me for years that we have a huge industry that is untaxed and where there is no quality control.

I suspect that it's politically impossible at present, but good on Zack for daring to open a discussion.

 

[Psamathe]

If that's the answer, then legalising and taxing achieves little, because the untaxed versions are still available.

Another issue with this approach is that it sends the message that use of a given substance is okay.

Again, the fact we have legally available alcohol, lots of messages from government that we shouldn't drink, and widespread alcohol abuse anyway rather tells you how hard it is to tell people not to do perfectly legal things.

There are much stronger arguments for decriminalising drug use.

I wasn't trying to present the a case for legalisation, just pointing out that legalisation can encompass a wide range of options. eg there are vast numbers of drugs that are legal yet not freely available - "legalisation" doesn't mean Tesco will be adding it to their shelves.

I was more trying to highlight how our current situation isn't working so considering alternatives and changes makes a lot of sense.

 

[Psamathe]

I'll take your word that they're as easy to get as a takeaway. I'm not sure that making even hard drugs easier still to get will help society in the long term. Very hard to put the toothpaste back in the tube once you go down that route.

Legalising doesn't necessarily mean easier to get. Legalising is a very very broad term with a lot of options and constraints.

 

[First Aspect]

I wasn't trying to present the a case for legalisation, just pointing out that legalisation can encompass a wide range of options. eg there are vast numbers of drugs that are legal yet not freely available - "legalisation" doesn't mean Tesco will be adding it to their shelves.

I was more trying to highlight how our current situation isn't working so considering alternatives and changes makes a lot of sense.

Furry muff in that case. I guess I agree, given my thoughts on decriminalisation of drug users.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

legalising and taxing achieves little, because the untaxed versions are still available.

But there would be quality control on the legalised stuff. You'd know what you were getting.

 

[First Aspect]

But there would be quality control on the legalised stuff. You'd know what you were getting.

Sure, I get the argument. The answer is high quality ketamine.

In fact, in large part drug legalisation as referred to is already a proposed broadening of availability in many cases, even the headline policy is misleading.

 

[All uphill]

But there would be quality control on the legalised stuff. You'd know what you were getting.

It's also worth thinking about the criminality and other undesirable behaviour associated with street drugs. Bringing drug supply into a regulated and controlled environment (eg a pharmacy) gives opportunities to protect and support users.

 

[First Aspect]

It's also worth thinking about the criminality and other undesirable behaviour associated with street drugs. Bringing drug supply into a regulated and controlled environment (eg a pharmacy) gives opportunities to protect and support users.

It doesn't though, it just creates a new and regulated supply.

 

[BoldonLad]

It doesn't though, it just creates a new and regulated supply.

not sure I understand how you come to that conclusion? Alcohol and tobacco are not without their criminal connections (eg smuggling for one), but, unless I am very much mistaken, the major proportion of transactions are via legal channels (ie pub, supermarket etc). It is clear that overzealous taxation, producing a higher price does make the illegal trade more attractive to the criminal fraternity, but, that is down to Politicians to show restraint (yes, I know, pause for laughter).

 

[bobzmyunkle]

It doesn't though, it just creates a new and regulated supply.

Wad a similar reasoning used to argue against the end of prohibition in the USA?
What's the percentage of bootleg alcohol bought in the UK?

Edit - @bolden making the same argument got there first.

 

[First Aspect]

Wad a similar reasoning used to argue against the end of prohibition in the USA?
What's the percentage of bootleg alcohol bought in the UK?

Edit - @bolden making the same argument got there first.

Okay, so are you arguing that the current availability of alcohol is applicable to these other drugs?

What if your public health experts say actually, this is a bad idea and they should be at the very least really expensive so people don't use them?

 

[icowden]

I wasn't trying to present the a case for legalisation, just pointing out that legalisation can encompass a wide range of options. eg there are vast numbers of drugs that are legal yet not freely available - "legalisation" doesn't mean Tesco will be adding it to their shelves.

Actually it probably does. Hence decriminalisation is better. Government controls supply and quality and undercuts the dealers. People can shoot up (or whatever) in safe locations and be encouraged to quit.

It worked well in Portugal, but it does have an expense. More right wing parties don't like that expense and don't see the cost reduction from lower crime (you don't need to steal to buy your crack).

Some people will still use dealers, but it becomes a less preferential option and dealers still get long prison sentences.

 

[BoldonLad]

Okay, so are you arguing that the current availability of alcohol is applicable to these other drugs?

What if your public health experts say actually, this is a bad idea and they should be at the very least really expensive so people don't use them?

In my opinion, this is the fallacy of trying to "protect" people, if you make the drug(s) of choice too expensive, people will turn to a less expensive option. A case of unintended consequences. I am not and never was a smoker (other than a brief youthful bravado), but, it appears to me that the rise of vaping is largely because of the increased cost of tobacco.