Think Tank 'thoughts' on UK drug policy

[Huguenot]

I think you're conflating two different issues there brum.

The 1960s coincided with massive population migration around the world and decreased shipping costs.

This not only increased the knowledge of and access to narcotics (though international networks) but decreased cost of transportation.

Compared with that the impact of prescription changes would have been negligible.

[????]

So the libeterian solution, legalisation

1) How could we do this unilaterally? Looks impossible to do this without international co-operation

2) Are we happy with the almost inevitable increase in consumption of class A drugs throughout all sections of society with consequences for society especially in health and mental health - but with some probable benefits to crime and policing

3) What kind of framework would we put around this - eg age, availibility

No solutions at all just some thoughts eary in the morning...but it looks sky in the pie to me so we'll just muddle along I suspect

[LegalEagle-ish]

I Can't believe the consensus on here, when i got shot down in flames for suggesting decriminalisation of drugs back in the mists of time!

Another thing to think about is making it easier for these enterprising young guys to start up their own businesses in non-drug related areas, without being swamped in all the red tape that suffocate small business start-ups.

[????]

that's when the forum was filled with them 'liberals' of the fascist type legal...but back on topic and what you touch on too, a new and formally legal drug economy would actually take a reasonable chunk of money and enterprise out of our inner cities and put it back into corporates

[mockney piers]

You call them enterprising, but for all the 'evil' implied in corporation, young polish nannies don't get shot in the head in the crossfire as Carling fight a turf war with Timothy Taylor.

Was it D'Angelo in the wire who wondered why they kept shooting each other, why they couldn't just sell it like a shop.

As long as crime and violence hangs around the illegal drug industry like a bad smell, there's a case for putting in the hands of those who are at least more socially responsible.

Oh and it's nicer in here Legal Eagle, the only flames in here are those in the open log fire by the brandy decanter. ;)

[????]

Whilst I get your point to a degree piers - it can't be necessary for me to go and trawl through the internet for examples of the 100s(?) of workers killed or maimed annually working in terrible conditions on the payroll of suppliers to responsible corporates or even directly employed by them...but they exist you agree?

[mockney piers]

And yes I get yours, but I think death due to terrible conditions is largely a thing of the past (well in Europe at any rate) thanks largely to worker representation resulting in protective legislation, that dreaded health & safety.

Death due to oversight or incompetence is still way short of actual murder (not to say that corporate heads shouldn't occassionally be charged, some of the avoidable rail disasters spring to mind, but I digress).

I've yet to see lobbying for street dealer job protection, leaving alone (err or not) the while issue of the muck they shove IN the product itself.

But point taken.

[antijen]

I think if legislation was to happen, it could not work the way it does now, eg: with heroin addicts, the early 80's saw many people buying from there legal dealers (doctors in Harley street), because at that time there were much less gp's prescibing it. You didnt have to be rich to be on with these docs, as less than half there prescriptions were sold to cover the fees. I know people who were picking up more than a gallon of methodone a week, 200mls a day. This overprescibing saw people becoming seriously addicted to this heroin substitute and created a black market that continues today, whilst there was the people who recieved maintenance scripts, including injectables, who had been registered since late 60's 70's. I think its time to involve people who by choice have realised this is not the life they want, who have stayed clean, there understanding and experience is invaluable.

[antijen]

A link to "The Brain Report". A goverments look that saw many changes.

[Damian]

Just one more general thought regarding the complete legalisation of the drugs market.

The current legislation and policy leads to huge waste of resources (you can't win the war) and increases corruption (those who are making huge profits doing business that by definition now is illegal, feel no compunction to use the money to bribe others, including doubtlessly cops).

Why not legalise the stuff and spend half of the saved money on innovative ways of helping addicts and perhaps educating those who are most likely to become addicts and give the other half back to taxpayers in lower taxes?

Anyone in favour?

[antijen]

http://www.drugtext.org/library/reports/wootton/strange.htm

Sorry forgot to put it up.

[Huguenot]

Sorry antijen, I couldn't understand this one: "I think its time to involve people who by choice have realised this is not the life they want"

Does this mean that you and your chums actually have the solution? How do you want to be 'involved'? You want a job as a social worker or MP? What are you going to do with this power once granted?

I 'realised' that I didn't want this life - should I be involved?

[antijen]

Huguenot, You make big assumptions for someone who does not understand what I mean, I will now make an assumption that the alcohol you drunk yesterday at the wedding has caused some confusion about who has the drug problems.

I have worked with the homeless in the past many who had drug problems, and I kept in touch and became friends with some (I know, against the rules). Some of these people had spent time in prison therefore found it hard to get work regardless of being clean. I believe they have expertise that can be used instead of coming up against people with an attitude like this. Huguenot wrote: "Does this mean that you and your chums actually have the solution? How do you want to be 'involved'? You want a job as a social worker or MP? What are you going to do with this power once granted?"

[Huguenot]

Sure antijen.

How do you propose their expertise can be used? How do you feel this will contribute to solving crime from drugs?

I wasn't at a wedding yesterday?

[antijen]

Sorry got you mixed up with Mockney, Huguenot.

I do not wish to put anyone down who is working and trying to help people addicted to drugs but it seems obvious to me that when someone has experienced it they are in a better position to understand. I think user led groups do not have the barriers often attached with expert/user help, it gives back resposibility and allows people to have more say in there progress or not.

[Huguenot]

Okay - just to clarify my understanding is that you'd like to see more community outreach groups staffed by ex-addicts?

Do you feel there's not enough community teams at the moment, or do you feel that there are, but they're staffed by the wrong people?

[antijen]

I believe drugs should be legalised, I do believe if this was to be the case it would decriminalise many addicts, also crime would be reduced significantly. Yes I do believe, even if people are still addicted that they would be the best people for the job. The people I know who work with addicts are genuine, good people, fighting for funding and although there is job satisfaction often they feel its a losing battle. I think the stereo typical judgement has filtered through over the years, where young people associate drug addiction with bad behaviour, which makes it easy to behave in this way if they themselves become addicted. I believe stealing from your family, etc, is an excuse used by addicts, because society associates this behaviour with addiction, especially drugs. Legislation would take away this excuse, and no huguenot I am not after any power, but I believe in giving the power back to people, to make decisions for themselves.

[Huguenot]

Well that seems understandable.

However, if this is power to the people, then presumably these addicts won't be drawing a salary from the government to talk to other addicts?

If they will be, then presumably your service is just another part of social services?

Or are you suggesting another service using public funding, except that it's unaccountable?

[SteveT]

Mockney Piers wrote:-

And yes I get yours, but I think death due to terrible conditions is largely a thing of the past (well in Europe at any rate) thanks largely to worker representation resulting in protective legislation, that dreaded health & safety.

Isn't it more to do with exporting the filthy dangerous jobs to the far east, as they do it for a fraction of the cost?

Health & safety is a newly created 'industry' which is non-productive and stultifying to wealth producing industry.

[HAL9000]

Damian Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Anyone in favour?

I've long supported the legalisation / decriminalisation of most illicit drugs.

Some hallucinogenic and disassociative drugs are extremely dangerous to the users themselves and anyone else who happens to be in the vicinity. I still think people should be free to experience them though, but only under supervision in a controlled environment. Perhaps at some sort of a private recreational-drug resort with medical staff on call?

[louisiana]

Well some drugs are effectively legalised. Such as those seized by so-called 'security' at venues, clubs and festivals, and those controlled/sold by same.

'Security' will harvest drugs from punters so that they can then (a) use themselves or (b) sell. They are particularly interested in coke I believe, not particularly interested in MDMA etc., for obvious reasons. They'll also let their own dealers onto the premises to deal at will.

I've been astonished to see really blatant widespread dealing by individuals (who might as well have had 'dealer' emblazoned on their foreheads; for example wandering about shouting the names of the drugs they have to all and sundry) with no action at all taken by 'security', while simultaneously seen action taken by self-same 'security' against people who only appeared to be 'using'. Of course 'security' don't refer the matter to the police/venue, so they don't have to hand over the drugs.

I've also seen, at a festival, 'security' confiscate commercial cream whippers (no drugs included) so they can go off and get high with some nitrous oxide nicked elsewhere. And overheard them saying as much. I'm no fan of the whole nitrous thing at festivals today (tiresome to say the least), but this kind of 'we can do/sell drugs because of who we are' stuff on the part of 'security' has got beyond a joke.

The harvesting practice and dealer/'security' relationships are well known by venues and events organisers and by the authorities: long reports have been written about the relationship between security staff/firms and drugs.

However, as 'security' for any venue is generally provided by a third party 'security' organisation, which has to be approved by the police and may even have a close relationship with the police (some 'security' organisations are run by ex-coppers), it's difficult for venues/organisers to do anything about it. I don't believe the current legal framework for security firms and staff has made one iota of difference: the behaviours of these people are unchanged. It's a racket, and they are running it. The government has in effect legalised drugs when in the hands of approved 'security' firms.

[LuLu Too]

HAL9000 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Damian Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Anyone in favour?

>

> I've long supported the legalisation /

> decriminalisation of most illicit drugs.

>

> Some hallucinogenic and disassociative drugs are

> extremely dangerous to the users themselves and

> anyone else who happens to be in the vicinity. I

> still think people should be free to experience

> them though, but only under supervision in a

> controlled environment. Perhaps at some sort of a

> private recreational-drug resort with medical

> staff on call?

Hmmm - I think you've just described an NHS acute psychiatric ward, HAL9000.

Sure, lets legalise & decriminalise. And put the tax revenue into mental health services.

[daizie]

HAL9000 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Damian Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Anyone in favour?

>

> I've long supported the legalisation /

> decriminalisation of most illicit drugs.

>

> Some hallucinogenic and disassociative drugs are

> extremely dangerous to the users themselves and

> anyone else who happens to be in the vicinity. I

> still think people should be free to experience

> them though, but only under supervision in a

> controlled environment. Perhaps at some sort of a

> private recreational-drug resort with medical

> staff on call?

Sounds wonderful HAL , if only eh

[alphacalifragelistic]

For those interested in the policy debate in this area, could I suggest that the open access LSE public lecture detailed below might be a worthwhile event to attend.

http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/LSEPublicLecturesAndEvents/events/2009/20090824t1232z001.htm

The Cocaine Wars: The Mess We're in and How to Get Out of it

Date: Thursday 15 October 2009

Time: 6.30-8pm

Venue: Hong Kong Theatre, Clement House

Speaker: Tom Feiling

Tom Feiling analyses the thinking behind drug prohibition and how and why the strategies embarked on to date have failed so spectacularly. His critique draws on research and interviews he conducted with those with first-hand experience of cocaine and the campaign to prohibit cocaine, for his new book The Candy Machine: How Cocaine Took Over the World. He then looks at the advantages and disadvantages of the alternatives to current anti-drugs policies. Finally, he discusses how a legal, regulated market for cocaine might work in practice.

After graduating from the LSE in 1990, Tom Feiling spent 10 years working in documentary production. Among the documentaries he has made are '33% Heroin', which looked at heroin users in London, and 'Resistencia: Hip-Hop in Colombia', which looked at the crises afflicting Colombia through the eyes of its rappers. Tom has also worked as Campaigns Director for the NGO Justice for Colombia. The Candy Machine: How Cocaine Took Over the World is his first book.

The event is free and open to all with no ticket required. Entry is on a first come, first served basis. Any queries, email events@lse.ac.uk or phone 020 7955 6043.

[woofmarkthedog]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The fact that many of the 'elders' are in jail or

> dead also leaves us with 14, 15 and 16 year olds

> with guns running the streets - Lord of the Flies

> stuff. Anyone read the 'Freakeconomics' chapter on

> drug dealers, 'Why most drug dealers live with

> their moms(sic)"? Fascinating stuff on the

> economics of drug dealing.

------------------------------------------------------------

Yes it's a good very good read "Freakanomics" , around here you see kids still living with 'mum" driving new but fairly modest cars ( with tints ) selling gear to mostly old guys driving bashed up cars.

It's a bloody weird situation, what's your thoughts on the legalised heroin clinic in the news today ?