Does anybody here take the Greens seriously?

[Bromptonaut]

I'm no expert but those categorised as Class A could be a decent starting point. What's your point?

I'm thinking a chunk of class A including Cocaine, MDMA, Mushrooms and Morphine are over classified.

 

[BoldonLad]

I cannot claim personal experience, never having taken "recreational drugs", other than alcohol, and, a brief period of indulging in tobacco in my teenage years.

However, I do have a drug addict son, who has had many brushes with the law as a result of his drug use (including 3 months in prison).

My opinion is, the current systems isn't working. A death sentence for supplying, possession and/or using may, eventually solve the problem, but, I doubt it, and I am not advocating it.

To me, there is a lack of evidence regarding why addiction happens, the true consequences of drug us (including tobacco and alcohol). We do not seem to understand WHY some people become addicted and some do not. If you do not understand why, I don't see how you can "fix" it. Perhaps, it is a "feature" of being human, perhaps it cannot be fixed, I have no idea.

The term "addicted" applies to other activities than drugs, the most obvious being gambling.

My uneducated opinion, to reduce crime, and harm, is legalise all of it, regulate it and tax it, just like Alcohol and Tobacco. If the Politicians can resist being too greedy (with taxation levels) it would just be easier and safer to use the legal product. No doubt, just as with alcohol, a small proportion of users would resort to "illegal" means to satisfy their habit, and, would pay the penalty (in health/wellbeing terms, but, for the majority it would be an improved situation. We also need to make it clear that being "under the influence" of your drug of choice is not an excuse for unacceptable behaviour (ie in the same way that we penalise driving under the influence of alcohol).

 

[AuroraSaab]

Fair enough, although the emphasis on public drug use smacks slightly (not on your part) of an out of sight out of mind attitude.

Public drug taking and the homelessness and rough sleeping that often accompanies it is a problem though. It's ok saying 'out of sight out of mind' means you don't care but it doesn't take into account how unpleasant it is for people who live and work in drug taking hot spots, or people who have businesses there.

 

[First Aspect]

Public drug taking and the homelessness and rough sleeping that often accompanies it is a problem though. It's ok saying 'out of sight out of mind' means you don't care but it doesn't take into account how unpleasant it is for people who live and work in drug taking hot spots, or people who have businesses there.

Well there's a bit of chicken and egg going on there I would say. By which I mean if you tackle homelessness you likely address the issue. Wherein tacking homelessness is more complex than simply finding someone a place to live.

 

[BoldonLad]

Well there's a bit of chicken and egg going on there I would say. By which I mean if you tackle homelessness you likely address the issue. Wherein tacking homelessness is more complex than simply finding someone a place to live.

Very true

 

[icowden]

Oregon did and have voted to partially overturn it. The decriminalization coincided with fetanyl becoming increasingly available and led to more deaths and more public drug taking. If you don't back up decriminalisation with massive investment in healthcare and rehab you don't actually reduce the number of drug users just the number of arrests.

The Oregon method was never going to work. There were too many sources around Oregon, the dealers flooded the market with cheap illicit fentanyl faster than the money from tax revenue from selling legal drugs could be used to tackle the addiction. It was massively flawed - it may surprise you but the USA is absolutely shoot when it comes to healthcare and welfare. They didn't have treatment programmes in place. There were just so many things wrong with it.

 

[icowden]

So drug dealers continue to supply the stuff. I seem to recall once of the objections upthread was unsavoury individuals profiting from the activity (a point I don't disagree with), but the implication as I read it was that the state makes the profit instead.

The rationale is thus...

Yes, the drug dealers will continue to supply drugs - it's what they do. However the state will also sell drugs, but a) more cheaply than the dealers and b) with a guarantee that you aren't going to die because it's been cut with rat poison or scrapings from the floor etc.

The point is that the drug takers are victims - you supply help to get them off drugs and rehabilitate them. You continue to arrest and imprison dealers.

The idea is to put the dealers out of business and into prison, not the victims. Timpson reckons that around 2/3rds of the current prison population should not be in jail, and instead should be on rehabilitation and support programmes. That would be a massive saving for the taxpayer.

 

[Psamathe]

around 2/3rds of the current prison population should not be in jail, and instead should be on rehabilitation and support programmes. That would be a massive saving for the taxpayer.

And although not the purpose of such rehabilitation programs, many would be contributing to society as well as helping the individual.

 

[BoldonLad]

Interesting. Are we going to "rehabilitate" the users of the existing legal drugs (alcohol and tobacco), and even the gamblers among us?

 

[AuroraSaab]

Well there's a bit of chicken and egg going on there I would say. By which I mean if you tackle homelessness you likely address the issue. Wherein tacking homelessness is more complex than simply finding someone a place to live.

Sure but without massive investment on all fronts eg rehab, accomodation etc, neither taking a hard line against possession nor decriminalising possession is going to result in reducing actual drug use long term. Some are on drugs because they're homeless; some are homeless because they're on drugs.

 

[BoldonLad]

Sure but without massive investment on all fronts eg rehab, accomodation etc, neither taking a hard line against possession nor decriminalising possession is going to result in reducing actual drug use long term. Some are on drugs because they're homeless; some are homeless because they're on drugs.

Is the decriminalisation of possession intended to STOP drug use, or, simply to make such use safer (and, possibly cheaper).

 

[AuroraSaab]

It was massively flawed - it may surprise you but the USA is absolutely shoot when it comes to healthcare and welfare. They didn't have treatment programmes in place. There were just so many things wrong with it.

No, it doesn't surprise me, but given that we all know the US government, or States, are not going to suddenly put billions into treatment programmes for fetanyl addicts, it's also unsurprising that the public lost patience with having areas that were no go areas where addicts used in public and crime was rife.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Is the decriminalisation of possession intended to STOP drug use, or, simply to make such use safer (and, possibly cheaper).

Meant to save money I guess by keeping those found in possession of minor amounts out of the criminal justice system. I don't see how it would make it safer or reduce drug use.

 

[the snail]

Is the decriminalisation of possession intended to STOP drug use, or, simply to make such use safer (and, possibly cheaper).

I think it's more about harm reduction. I'm not sure there is any measure that would stop drug use - certainly the prohibition model doesn't seem to have achieved much in the last 100 years.

 

[Psamathe]

Is the decriminalisation of possession intended to STOP drug use, or, simply to make such use safer (and, possibly cheaper).

I think both. Neither can be 100% effective but there are a lot of steps society could take to reduce harm, to reduce numbers suffering addiction. None will eliminate harm nor eliminate use but reduction will improve lives.

We are meant to be a society not an economy.