For a brief moment it seemed as if drugs law in the UK was heading in the right direction. But, in case you missed it, Tony Blair recently hinted that he might reverse the declassification of cannabis: half a step forwards, and half a step backwards.
Jim Bliss is quite pissed off about this, and explains why. Then in the comments-section he gets even more pissed off when David Duff chips in with his tuppence worth. Well worth reading.
My own views are that if you’re worried about drugs-related crime, or about people’s safety, then prohibition is pretty counter-productive, not to mention the fact that criminalising vast swathes of the population for activities which do no harm to anyone else strikes me as unfair, and not what the law should be used for. But whether you agree with that or not, it’s clear that Tony Blair can’t make up his mind on this issue and so is half-arsedly tinkering with the edges of the law, which is not what good governments do.
Posted by Larry
"Here’s a couple of points for you. 1) I don’t employ you as an analyst. 2) If I did I would fire you, because you are incredibly shit at it."
Magnificent writing. I love comments boxes!!!
A curious juxtaposition of phrases in one sentence: "drugs-related crime", and, "activities which do no harm to anyone else". ‘Shome mishtake, shurely?’
Not really. I’m objecting to people being criminalised for possession of drugs. I’m also suggesting that the problem of junkies mugging old women to get cash quickly for their next shot would drastically diminish if heroin was legally and cheaply available. I’m not objecting to the fact that mugging old women is a criminal offence.
Unfortunately, I guess, for the sort of people who are so badly hooked that their need is desperate, drugs will never be cheap enough, and as they are almost certainly un-employable, they are unlikely ever to have sufficient money to feed the habit. And remember that if you legalise drug use the number of users will escalate enormously, and therefor, so to will the number of ‘desperadoes’. Old ladies beware!
David, I don’t accept any of that.
>for the sort of people who are so badly hooked that their >need is desperate, drugs will never be cheap enough, and >as they are almost certainly un-employable
I think you underestimate the extent to which prohibition compounds the problems associated with heroin addiction. It is perfectly possible for someone to be hooked on heroin and to lead a productive, functional life. However, the system as it now stands makes that possibility remote, as addicts have to buy their heroin from unscrupulous evil drug-dealers. What they buy could be any strength, or might not even be heroin at all. It’s guaranteed to be extremely expensive though, and the dealer has a vested interest in selling them as much as possible, whilst pushing the price up as he feels like. How could anyone hope to control their habit in these circumstances?
If heroin were legally and cheaply available, addicts would be able to exercise far more control over their habit. They would be able to establish a routine, knowing exactly how much they were taking how many times a day, etc. They wouldn’t have to panic about where their next shot was coming from. Routine is the basis of an ordered life, and in this scenario they would be far more likely to be able to hold down a job (not to mention have any sort of social/family life) than in the current situation.
>And remember that if you legalise drug use the number of >users will escalate enormously, and therefor, so to will >the number of ‘desperadoes’
I don’t remember that at all. I said heroin should be "legally and cheaply" available. I didn’t say it should be stocked next to the cigarettes in every corner-shop. I have in mind clinics where heroin (up to a certain dosage of cousre) will be available from trained staff who can keep tabs on who’s taking how much, and who can offer guidance and help for addicts who want to quit. Maybe even the heroin should have to be taken on site (I’m not yet certain on this point). That would go far to deglamourise the drug. It would separate the heroin market from the recreational drug market, and would take supply out of the hands out of evil bastards who have a vested interest in getting more people hooked.
David, your last comment displayed a breath-taking ignorance of the subject being discussed. I do not challenge your right to talk about whatever you want; but don’t you think it’d be more sensible to actually learn something about an issue before posting ignorant, uninformed versions of Daily Mail editorials onto the web?
Just a suggestion… do feel free to ignore it.
You said:
>
> Unfortunately, I guess, for the sort
> of people who are so badly hooked that
> their need is desperate, drugs will
> never be cheap enough, and as they are
> almost certainly un-employable, they
> are unlikely ever to have sufficient
> money to feed the habit.
>
You’re right. You do "guess". Wrongly.
Up until the late 1960s heroin addicts in the UK received the drug on prescription. Almost all of them held down jobs. However, it’s often argued that "times have changed". So rather than looking to the past, let’s look to another foreign country.
Switzerland introduced a trial heroin maintenance programme in the 1990s. I studied it carefully when publishing Heads and Tales (a magazine I ran on the subject of drugs and drug law) and it would seem to provide evidence that your "guess" above is horseshit.
"While in the programme, their health situation improved, physically and mentally, their social integration improved, their criminal activity decreased significantly and overall the outcome was that they could be stabilised, they could hold jobs and they went back into society."
In fact the percentage of addicts who were in gainful employment rose from less than 5 to over 75% in the space of three years. So on that issue, David, you’re just plain wrong.
>
> And remember that if you legalise drug
> use the number of users will escalate
> enormously…
>
Do you have any evidence whatsoever to back this up? What little evidence that does exist on this subject would appear to imply quite the opposite. I don’t tend to cite it, however, as I wouldn’t consider it conclusive. I’m wondering what conclusive evidence you’ve discovered… or is this another "guess"?
>
> and therefor, so to will the number
> of ‘desperadoes’. Old ladies beware!
>
Well no, if you’d been listening you’d understand that the point of a legalised supply is to eliminate the need for acquisitive crime on behalf of the addict. And there’s overwhelming evidence that actually works.
Old ladies only need to beware of desperate addicts under the system you’re defending.
This is a cut and paste of a comment that David left, I assume by mistake, under my post "football".
A lot of bloggers think I’m a wind-up merchant! Difficult to believe, I know, so let me make clear that (provisionally) I am in favour of legalised drug use. However, there are difficulties. If you make a product cheaper and more easily accessible, then more people will use it. If at the same time, the state, so to speak, gives its imprimatur of approval to a product that hitherto was frowned upon, then again, usage will increase.
At the moment. there is x% of drug users who are, shall we say, out of control, and who will resort to criminality in order to feed their habit. I do not know what that percentage is, but whatever it is, it will increase as the number of drug users increases, and thus, criminality will increase, too.
I must add that I absolutely disagree with your notion of, presumably, government-run clinics for the supply of drugs. Let the market place distribute and sell, and then the government can tax the profits. Personally, I would then disband all those so-called ‘drug-busting’ agencies and spend the money on a constant and high-powered propoganda campaign warning of the dangers of drug use. However, my quid pro quo for that expenditure is that I would close down all government (and therefor tax-funded) re-hab clinics, on the grounds that if, after all the warnings, an individual takes drugs, then they must take responsibility for their own actions.
(Please don’t tell Jim Bliss about this, he’ll go even pottier than he already is – er, no pun intended – I think!)
Ah, so you’re actually in favour of legalisation David. But you want to retain the profit motive and remove the safety net.
I can’t see how that would be anything other than a disaster.
David, firstly I’m sorry for "telling Jim Bliss about this", I assume he’ll now read it, but that wasn’t my motovation in copying your comment here.
It sounds like you do want heroin to be availabe next to the cigarettes in corner shops. In that system, of course heroin-usage will shoot up (no pun intended). That however is a problem of the system you seem to be suggesting. I don’t accept that the system I’m suggesting (with the clinics) would not have that problem.
the state, so to speak, gives its imprimatur of approval to a product that hitherto was frowned upon
I don’t believe that the correct use of the law is as a frowning-mechanism for the state.
I must add that I absolutely disagree with your notion of, presumably, government-run clinics for the supply of drugs.
Well I don’t wish to sound ungracious, but I’m not in the slightest bit surprised or bothered by this news. If we broaden this discussion to address the question of which services should be paid for through tax and which should be paid for directly by individuals we’ll be here till doomsday, and I guess we’ll hardly find a square millimetre of common-ground. We’d better just accept that we some deeply held and incompatible views on this matter.
However, my quid pro quo for that expenditure is that I would close down all government (and therefor tax-funded) re-hab clinics
Unsurprisingly I see this differently: the country will be better off under my system. There will be a big reduction in criminal activities by desperate junkies, and far less time and work will be taken up in Accident and Emergency wards clearing up the messes of heroin-overdose and contamination. So my quid-pro-quo is that in return, society should be compassionate enough to help out some of its more miserable members by paying for rehab clinics.
I ‘hear what you say’ on the subject of clinics versus corner shops but would put the following to you: There is just a hint of good, old-fashioned, British humbuggery in your solution, that is, you want drugs to be freely available, but only if and when ‘nanny’ is there! Also, it is only fair to point out the huge costs of premises, security, 24-hour staff, etc.
You may not "believe" that "the law is as a frowning-mechanism" but that is exactly and precisely what it is. It reflects, in a rough and ready way, the mores of society.
I can understand your instinctive recoil from my suggestion that all tax-funded re-hab units be closed. Apart from my suspicion (and, no, I do not have the figures and I wouldn’t believe then anyway) that such clinics have a miserably low success rate, I would view with slight pity, but mostly indifference, the increased death-rate amongst addicts that would result. I would make every effort to propogate the knowledge of these deaths because I believe that would be the most efficacious way to convince youngsters not to try drugs in the first place. Fear (and greed) are great motivators.
I realise that the last paragraph will shock, but I only write with (brutal) honesty what I believe, and I must, in return, accept your judgement on the poverty of my morality, to say nothing of my sense of comradely unity.
There is just a hint of good, old-fashioned, British humbuggery in your solution, that is, you want drugs to be freely available, but only if and when ‘nanny’ is there!
It’s not humbuggery (or any other sort of buggery) at all. The system I propose is the one I think is best for everyone. It may be not to your extreme libertarian taste, but it’s hardly what most people would understand by the term "nanny state". It’s reasonable isn’t it that only properly trained state-endorsed instructers should be allowed to take paying customers sky-diving? We insist that bus-drivers should be properly qualified don’t we? So why not say that only in proper clinics should you be allowed to buy heroin?
You might think that keeping tabs on who’s bought how much heroin (to prevent people selling it on or going from clinic to clinic getting more) is insufferable nanny-statism, I just think it’s sensible. You and I see the world differently David.
such clinics have a miserably low success rate
If people are sent to rehab clinics against their will it’s unsurprising that rehab is likely to fail. In my system people who go to rehab will do so because they genuinely want to quit. Because of their motivation, the chance of success will be much greater.
I would view with slight pity, but mostly indifference, the increased death-rate amongst addicts that would result
Charming.
I only write with (brutal) honesty what I believe
I realise that (unless you really are just a wind-up merchant of course). It’s just that what you believe happens to be thoroughly unpleasant.
I must, in return, accept your judgement on the poverty of my morality
Well you can consider that forthcoming then.
to say nothing of my sense of comradely unity.
I’ve no idea what you mean by this. Are you calling me a communist or something?
So perhaps we should have "only properly trained state-endorsed instructers" to sell us fags and booze? Still, it’s true, "You and I see the world differently".
As to calling you a communist, certainly not, what would a communist be doing in a website called http://www.stalinism.com/? I just meant that I am more of an individualist rather than a collectivist. And whilst I believe free markets, which were never invented by a man, are the best way to distribute goods and services, I am not an extreme libertarian. There is an essential place for government, but not the overwhelming and over weening type that we suffer today.
Good discussion – enjoyed it.
So perhaps we should have "only properly trained state-endorsed instructers" to sell us fags and booze?
Well it’s sort of true, innit? Pubs and Off Licenses have to have a license and they have to train their staff. Although not very bloody much, obviously – asking if you have a Nectar card seems to be the most important thing.
Mind you, just imagine how many points you could earn if you had a serious smack habit!
Oh David Duff, how wrong can you be?
" I would make every effort to propogate the knowledge of these deaths because I believe that would be the most efficacious way to convince youngsters not to try drugs in the first place. Fear (and greed) are great motivators."
Fear& greed are indeed great motivators. Except to teenage boys, who are more susceptible to bravado & peer-pressure, as is obvious from looking at adverts that target them.
Old farts who imagine teenagers are just like them have been around for no mean time. Remember the Beatles’ Christmas record? – "And now a discussion on teenagers – we’ll start with you, Sir George.."
Dave Heasman: I’m still in charge here, and there’ll be no bullying or censorship in SBBS on my watch. David Duff can be as wrong as he likes.
"there’ll be no bullying or censorship in SBBS"
Oh, did that come across as bullying and/or a call for censorship? If so I sincerely apologise. Mr Duff is essential round here & I’m glad he posts.
Fear not, chaps, you would need to hit me with a ten-pound sledge to get through my thick skin.
Though Dave touches a nerve with "Old farts who imagine teenagers are just like them have been around for no mean time". I am all too aware that from my age the current crop of teen-agers might as well come from Mars. But one thing I cling to is my hard-earned knowledge of human nature. So, yes, the ‘bravados’ would, of course, try drugs, but, *they would anyway*, whatever the circs. The point of my ‘shock and awe’ campaign would be to deter the fainter hearts.
As for the Beatles, I have spent most of my life trying to forget them, or to be precise, trying to forget one of my less than auspicous prognostications. Once, have listened to a song that seemed to contain nothing but the words "yeah, yeah, yeah" repeated ad nauseum, I proclaimed them to be rubbish, and foretold an early and deserved end to their budding career. I haven’t improved much over the years, have I?
I’m going to be wilfully controversial here…
You’re right about the Beatles. Especially Lennon’s songs, all the good ones are McCartney (if I see another poll saying Imagine is the best song ever, I think I’ll have to join a silent order). And while ‘Sgt Pepper’ has its moments (the McCartney bits, oddly enough), the Beach Boys got there first…
I’m probably as old as DD. When they first came out I thought that "Love Me Do" was a great record but "Beatles" was a stupid name & a recipe for failure.
It’s one thing to suggest that drug rehab units should be closed down, or that all socialised assistance to the weak should be removed… but the level of disrespect been shown towards the music of Lennon and The Beatles in this discussion has become entirely unacceptable.
Gentlemen, there are certain opinions that should be kept to oneself. Or does someone want to step outside…?