The Policy Blender

If you legalise and control substances do you not still have cheap illegal imports (such as with alcohol) and cheap imitation knockoffs (such as with cigarettes) to deal with. It's an interesting idea (Ben Elton's High Society is and entertaining read about the subject; although obviously based around a fictional story) but by making something legal that gives it a air of respectability. Now, everyone knows that cigarettes and alcohol (in large doses; small doses is allegedly good for you depending on with scientific study is most recently released on the subject) are bad for you but both are deemed acceptable in society. As a result I'd suggest that more people are likely to try and potentially become addicted to such substances making the problem worse.

I'm with Gonce. IF you legalise it, lots of people think 'Ooh, it's legal so it's ok' (to start with) and then you have more addicts to deal with (though you have more revenue to use in dealing with them). I don't like the idea that people should be protected from themselves, but I think it would be inconsistent of the present government to do it, and there would be a lot more it should do first with the licensing laws and a variety of other issues I'm too flippant to list.

I would argue that drugs already have an air of respectibility...

Apart from Heroin and crack. But then is drinking from a bottle of White Lightning respectible?

look deeper.

I think its very important that hard durgs remain entirely illegal, If hard drugs are legalised then I wont need to carry this glock to protect my interests, and guns make me feel cool, right :)

No, the short term losses would be unforgiveable. The long term would see a reduction in users, and a drastic reduction in the number of street trafickers, and the crime that surrounds the drug world. But how long has it taken the government to wean people off tobacco, since it was established it wasn't good for you? Are we to expect a large increase in heroin and crack use for twenty-five years, while the government pumps a billion of the extra revenue into anti-drug use campaigns?

Advantages:
Drug tourism (more money)
Extra tax revenue (more money)
Less dealers (though not no dealers)
Lower crime (maybe, but users may still need to steal to fund their now-legal-but more-expensive-due-to-tax habit)

Disadvantages
Drug tourists (weed users in Amsterdam are probably quite easy to handle, but we don't want to take all the world's crack addicts)
Increased use among our population
Associated reduction in productivity (maybe)
Condemnation from the international community

I think the status quo would be considerably safer for any government, not just this one. Though perhaps more should be done to differentiate between substances, and to reduce illegal use. Not in terms of law (you're quite right, it doesn't work), but in terms of policing, campaigns and medical treatment.

No, drinking from a bottle of White Lightning at 10 am on a park bench is not respectable. Such a person is likely to be in the group of people in society that have a drinking problem. This arose because they started drinking (legally or illegally depending on age). Legality makes something appear more respectable and accepted by society and indeed the government. So (as is the case with drinking) people will feel fine and happy to take the drug because it's deemed 'ok'. Then depending on circumstances and personality the person (just as with alcohol) becomes dependant and addicted and become the unrespectable face of that drug (here is our park bench drunk again). It happens with alcohol with is not chemically addictive, but (to my knowledge) entirely psychological. Other drugs legal or illegal (cigarettes, heroin) are and even more dangerous thing because the body become physically dependant. At least with cigarette addiction you can still be a functioning contributive member of society.

Gonce, I can't agree with you on any front.

1) Many drugs are appealing precisely because they are illegal. I remember when drinking in the pub was fun as much because I was underage as because I was drunk.

2) People can be functioning members of society on any number of substances. I don't know much about herion or crack, but I know that there are many many users of pretty much everything else who, in the words of Bill Hicks 'Didn't lose one...job: [and] laughed [their] ass off'. And I'm pretty sure herion users regularly hold down jobs quite happily too, but they get the good stuff, cause they can afford it. Cause they've got jobs.

3) This is a story of someone completely isolated fromt he rest of society. Where's the rest of what's happening? Where's the enforced 'help' they get when they're picked up by the police? Where's the role the dealer plays in getting them hooked (personal salesmen being much more persuasive than general law). It's a much more complex story, in every case, than man takes drug, man likes drug, man's life is given over to drug.

Matt, the example I quoted and the reference to addicts being unable to contribute to society is perhaps tainted by my lack of knowledge on the matter. This coupled with Hollywood and the media does give me the impression that real addicts; I'm talking about people that are constantly thinking of where the next 'fix' is coming from, are not useful members of society. I'm referring to the addicts that steal to fund their habbit. Surely you're not suggesting that such people are capable of holding down jobs? And even if they are, the fact that they steal makes them pretty anti-social in this (it tries to be) lawful society in which we live. I am suggesting that the numbers of these kinds of people are going to increase because they tried it, liked it and can't control their habbit for reasons of personality of circumstance.

However many people try something because it is illegal, I'd put money on at least if not more people trying something because it seems 'ok'. And, since you mentioned salesmen; if it were legal that means it would also (probably) be marketed, and you as a marketing exec should understand the power of marketing be it word of mouth, posters or TV. If it isn't made fairly easily available then people will continue to use illegal dealers because it is always easily available on the black market as I'm sure you're well aware.

Yes, yes, smokers are national benefactors, to quote Sir Humphrey Appleby, and it's of benefit to the nation that they continue to die at about the present rate. And the leftie thing is that wouldn't it be great if people didn't die - which is so naive.

The funding from drug revenue wouldn't fund a huge programme for rehabilitation and treatment, it would fund schools, and getting wiating lists down, and improving public transport. The Daily Mail would see to it. "£10B of your taxes go to addicts". "Schools lose out to crack users". Funding rehab clinics is not a vote winner. So from my leftie, naive "death is bad" point of view, I'd like it kept illegal at the moment, cause I think it's best to have fewer addicts than more, slightly-better-treated addicts. And the guys with the real problems wouldn't get better quiality stuff anyway, because they won't be able to afford the taxes.

Hi Gonce,

No, it'd be like cigarettes - they wouldn't be able to advertise in any way. Most of the packet would say "Jacking up while pregnant may harm your baby" and "Being completely f*cked for 20 hours in every day seriously damages your health".

The serious addicts are in trouble anyway, but you're right,we'd probably end up with more of them in the long run with legalisation. I sincerely believe that legalisation across the board could have long term benefits, but in the short term, it would be disastrous.

I am surpised to see that the general opinion is that legalising drugs would cut crime and remove dealers from the streets. What has clearly not been considered is that these people(guns, leather jackets, eyes point both ways at once, you know the sort) are not simply dealers or traffickers, they are criminals, if they are put out of the drug bussiness they will simnply re-apply themselves, people trafficking, prostitution, guns, car theft, there are plenty of other good ways to earn some cash on the mean streets, I can hardly see them saying, 'oh well the drug games up, now where did I put the application for that tesco's job'.
As a marginal aside, if there was one great benifit to legalising drugs it would surely be that our clever inventive scientists would be required (at gun point, or maybe at suitcase of blood money point) to make up some new potions, we know how long it would take to test and leagalise new substances, they could be knocking them out faster than we can legalise them. After all, enormous wads of cash and a diminished sense of responsibility seems to get results.

So let's legalise prostitution too. The others strike me as either lacking in a wealthy target audience, or too obvious for the police to ignore. Again, I still think there would be short term problems, but I think the long term benefits probably outweigh them in the case of bought-sex.

My point is simply that the drug dealers would continue with illegal activity, but they'd slowly un out of options.

Unless they keep making new drugs, which as I understand it, is how it works anyway, Chrystal Meth anyone.

But back to the ho's....yes lets :)

I think it works slightly better with the ladies of the night because the girls who were pedeling before can still persue there chosen profession as they are in essense the product and I should imagine the profit margin in a legal brothel would be almost as tasty as with the street pimpin, less guns though :(

Do we expect our street dealer to change from being supplier of all goods illeagal at enourmous proffit even at the lowest level, working there own hours and enjoying the spare produce (it really is a good job) to the guy who hands out the legal weed in threshers for piss all. I should expect he will be looking for a job with a bit more flexability and danger

These are people who have allready decided they dont mind breaking the law (and legs) if it makes them richer and there lives much easier. Surely we dont reduce the number of criminals simply by reducing the number of things that are a crime.

Of course no prises for geuessing why its is that my head is so thick this morning that I can construct a co-herent statement, (is that tobacco your smoking there or... pink floyd)does that make me a hypocrite, not really, I like crime, its edgy :)

I just thought of something. Where are we going to put these drug/sex outlets? There will be a lot of people who won't want them in their back yard, including many who will gladly use them as long as they're a good distance away.