Anyone proposing to make crack legal has never known someone who got addicted to it. Nasty nasty stuff.

Ditto alcohol. Oh, hang on…

Anyone proposing to make crack legal has never known someone who got addicted to it. Nasty nasty stuff.

That’s illogical. I agree it’s horrific stuff but how does criminalising addicts help? It just makes it far, far worse for them.

patriotpro – Member

If you could could get 3 ‘Es’ for a tenner (off a mate) or one for £15 from the shop (asking you for i.d limiting the quantity you can buy, etc), I like you have no idea what folk would go for,

Daft kids would probably go for the cheaper, dodgier ones. Anyone with half a brain (left) would buy the reliable one, life’s too short for bad drugs.

At some point, if society is ever to progress, we need to allow people to make their own decisions and deal with the consequences.

Daft kids would probably go for the cheaper, dodgier ones. Anyone with half a brain (left) would buy the reliable one, life’s too short for bad drugs.

Possibly, none of us know but as a big aspect of drug-taking is peer-pressure lead so it would depend on the circles they were in. As a large amount of E’s are taken by younger people from less affluent areas, I maintain they would go for the cheaper deal.

It would be nice to think that the £15 for one legal pill would be enough for the night, but as it would be controlled in it’s doseage of mdma and bulked out with other stuff, you would need more than one and 3 would be nearer £50.

the thread-title is a little leading.

legalise? – so that kids can buy meth in boots? – no.

decriminalise? – so that addicts can get help without getting a criminal record? – so that the supply of drugs is taken away from criminals? – yes.

If someone chooses the 3 for a tenner option over a regulated pill then so be it, but then they would be doing that anyway so we’re not in a worse situation that just now.

But what it may do for those who are determined to go out and get off their faces is give them the choice and take some of the lottery out of it. You only have to think back to a couple of months ago when about 6 folks died from those ‘rolex’ Es to see that regulation of whats in them makes sense.

Why would controlled ecstasy have to be more expensive than street ecstasy? If you allow controlled production by drug companies it would probably be cheaper, they cost pennies to produce, the cost is currently in the profit expected from criminality. Also remove a big chunk of the criminal market and their prices go up.

It is also a bit of a fantasy that E’s are mainly taken by poor kids.

Why would controlled ecstasy have to be more expensive than street ecstasy? If you allow controlled production by drug companies it would probably be cheaper, they cost pennies to produce, the cost is currently in the profit expected from criminality. Remove a big chunk of the criminal market and their prices go up.

This. The precursors for MDMA are cheap. They are expensive to the underworld because they have to be obtained illegally.

Add into that many levels of dealer after production (all wanting to make a profit) and by the time the drug reaches the consumer it’s massively overpriced.

Why would controlled ecstasy have to be more expensive than street ecstasy?

Well illegal alcohol is cheaper otherwise it’s not appealing so that’ll be why.

I am a bit torn about the legalising of heroin, crack and crystal meth though, I can see the advantage and would have usually argued in favour but I am beginning to change my mind.

These are not drugs that are usually chased for enjoyment, they are drugs that are turned to through desperation to escape life.

In most cases I think that people who start on that path are already at a bad point in their lives, a place we can all sometimes be in, but for most of us access to these drugs isn’t there, if it was I could see more people turning to them

Anyone proposing to make crack legal has never known someone who got addicted to it.

Surely the point is would the process of making it legal make someone more or less likely to become addicted to it, followed by if they did become addicted to it by which method are they most likely to receive support as opposed to having to prostitute themselves to apy for it, and by which method is it most likely to be in the hands of organsied crime?

Currently method A has been tried and appears to me to be a massive failure, so in my book that makes method b worth a go. Not rocket sceience really is it?

MSP – Member
Why would controlled ecstasy have to be more expensive than street ecstasy?

marketing, advertising, licensing, transport, packaging etc

Why would controlled ecstasy have to be more expensive than street ecstasy?

Marketing costs, TAX, retailers cut, testing, medical certification, etc and so on.

MSP – Member

I am a bit torn about the legalising of heroin and crystal meths though, I can see the advantage and would have usually argued in favour but I am beginning to change my mind.

for most of us access to these drugs isn’t there, if it was I could see more people turning to them

they wouldn’t if the supply wasn’t there.

which it wouldn’t be, if they were decriminalized and supplied in a prescriptive form – there’d be no money for the dealers, so they wouldn’t risk jail by selling them.

decriminalise? – so that addicts can get help without getting a criminal record? – so that the supply of drugs is taken away from criminals? – yes.

As I understand decriminalisation, the supply would remain in the hands of criminal gangs. Seems to make little sense to me. If you’re going legalise, do it properly. Also I can’t see any point in legalising drugs but not allowing them to be sold. After all, the very reasons people take drugs is for recreational purposes (at least in the beginning), if you deny that, then you’ll still have a black market. As for what drugs you would allow to be sold openly, I’d say all of them. Most drugs are demonised way beyond their actual negative impacts (heroin being a good case in point), and taken sensibly in moderation in a controlled way with a clean product are pretty safe.

dazh – Member

As I understand decriminalisation, the supply would remain in the hands of criminal gangs.

it doesn’t have to be like that. and hasn’t been – in the uk trials that have already taken place.

(Glasgow i believe, heroin addicts were given controlled doses of … heroin – so they didn’t have to steal, and their doses could be monitored)

marketing, advertising, licensing, transport, packaging etc

Ban advertising and marketing, only allowed to be supplied by chemists in plain packaging. Then it just comes down to not taxing them so high as to create an alternative black market.

Whoaa, hang on a bit. Most of our customers are in for drug related issues. Legalising class A’s would reduce drug related crime therefore reducing offenders? Don’t you lot know we’ve got prisons to fill & staff to employ.
I’ve got a mortgage to pay doncha know!

Legalise and legislate the manufacture and control (quality and supply). Current class A’s could be brought under state control, with a high level of support for those who wish to go clean.

To be prescribed you must be registered as an addict through your GP, with a proven history of usage, through the likes of hair testing to show history of use and what types of substance.

There will be a glut of people registering initially and as only those registered will be able to use.

In theory, there should be minimal new users as all distribution is handled by the state, and cost will be minimal compared to the crime that fuels the current use.

Might work, might not. Will be a damn sight cheaper than the present ‘war on drugs (are bad, m’kaaaay)’.

These are not drugs that are usually chased for enjoyment, they are drugs that are turned to through desperation to escape life.

That doesn’t have to be the case though. Like any drug, these can still be taken recreationally. It just happens to be the case that for many societal, sociological and economic reasons, these are the drugs which happen to be used by those ‘at the bottom’, who are more likely to fall into problematic use.

My best friends dad was drugs squad until retirement in the 90s. His take was that controlled legslization is the only way to convincingly make a real difference. I can’t see it in this country anytime soon. I think the leap of change is too radical for the UK.

To be prescribed you must be registered as an addict through your GP, with a proven history of usage, through the likes of hair testing to show history of use and what types of substance.

This isn’t much different to the current situation. How do you stop non-problematic users going to the black market because it’s not legally available?

In most cases I think that people who start on that path are already at a bad point in their lives, a place we can all sometimes be in, but for most of us access to these drugs isn’t there, if it was I could see more people turning to them

Presumably those people have access to alcohol? Why aren’t they alcoholics already?

This isn’t much different to the current situation. How do you stop non-problematic users going to the black market because it’s not legally available?

By controlling the cultivation, manufacture, quality control and supply, either by incentivising the current cartels, rather like buying trawler licences or as a last resort – force (although that doesn’t work too well in trying to stop supply lol).

If you take the control away from the cartels, you also have the chance to prevent the violent murder of tens of thousands each year in Mexico alone.

Imagine all the money the US spends on trying to prevent cocaine and heroin crossing it’s borders. That could easily be used to purchase the cocoa and poppies at bulk, wholesale prices.

Presumably those people have access to alcohol? Why aren’t they alcoholics already?

Well many alcoholics do start from being in a bad place, they have access to alcohol so that’s where they turn.
Certainly crack and crystal meth are extremely addictive, more so than alcohol. Heroin I am not so sure how it compares to alcohol for addiction, there has been so much mythology and propaganda for so many years it’s hard to get to the truth. But I seem to recall Will Self writing that you can’t be a heroin user without becoming an addict. I think for most it is possible to use alcohol without being addicted.

If you take the control away from the cartels, you also have the chance to prevent the violent murder of tens of thousands each year in Mexico alone.

Yes I agree, I’m pro-legalisation. My point was that by legalising drugs but limiting their supply to existing addicts via a prescription/GP doesn’t do anything to solve the main problem and is pretty much what happens now anyway.

But I seem to recall Will Self writing that you can’t be a heroin user without becoming an addict.

I think that b*llox to be honest. Addiction is a complex situation and I’m not sure it’s useful to define drugs on how ‘addictive’ they are as every person is different. A better measure would be to define drugs as to how easy they are to de-tox from once you’re physically dependant. I think on this measure heroin compares quite favourably to alcohol and nicotiene. Not sure about crack and crystal meth though (I shall ask Mrs Daz as she’s a drug worker).

Marketing costs, TAX, retailers cut, testing, medical certification, etc and so on.

marketing, advertising, licensing, transport, packaging etc

I take it you have heard of Drug “Cartels”? I’m guessing you’ve not worked out what a cartel is though?

From the office of Fair Trading website:

In its simplest terms, a cartel is an agreement between businesses not to compete with each other. The agreement is usually secret, verbal and often informal.

Typically, cartel members may agree on:

prices
output levels
discounts
credit terms
which customers they will supply
which areas they will supply
who should win a contract (bid rigging).
These agreements are prohibited by the Competition Act and Article 101 TFEU of the EC Treaty. In addition, the Enterprise Act makes it a criminal offence for individuals to dishonestly take part in certain specified cartels, essentially those that involve price fixing, market sharing, limitation of production or supply or bid rigging.

That is why a state controlled supply would remove the financial benefit from criminal enterprise. In essence where we are now with drugs is where the US was during prohibition with alcohol. That defintively proved that it is not possible to ban something for which there is a demand, as you simply drive it into the hands of organised crime, effectively scoring an own goal.

I really can’t get why people are unable to realise that the Drug cartels biggest friends are the “hang em and flog em” brigade. It would not surprise me in the least to find the Medine cartel and the like contributing to Republican and Conservative party funds. Good investment basically.

I think that b*llox to be honest. Addiction is a complex situation and I’m not sure it’s useful to define drugs on how ‘addictive’ they are as every person is different.

You can’t just ignore that some substances can have far higher physical and psychological addictive properties than others, independent of the user. For treatment it’s sensible to focus on the individuals response, for policy you have to focus on the substances affect on the majority.

You can’t just ignore that some substances can have far higher physical and psychological addictive properties than others, independent of the user.

Even if drugs were legalised, after a decade I’d be willing to bet my house that there would still be FAR more alcoholics than drug addicts.

You’re right though, we can’t ignore the addictive properties of drugs, which is why education is so important.

I recall reading a paper a while back about the levels of dependency/addition on prescription drugs. it was astounding. Then add in the number of people who would “never give up booze completely, but I’m sure I could if i wanted to” and the millions of cigarette smokers.

We live in a bizarre state where one type of drug addiction is considered to be acceptable and others are not, simply based on historical legislation of that drug (compared to dry countries for example).

True, heroin addiction is all encompassing for many, but that’s because there are few places to turn and even the places that you can only substitute one drug for another, state authorised one. It’s a no win situation.

The damage to the individual is unfortunate, but it’s ‘largely’ a case of it being self-inflicted. Yes, some people may have a pre-disposition to abuse through addiction, but what far out-weighs that is the collateral damage to people who have no connection, whether it’s passive smoking, being hit by a drunk/stoned driver, being robbed/burgled or parties full of teens in Mexico being slaughtered.

Gotta be worth a try, but as others have said – political suicide. I would argue that the electorate is largely ignorant of what’s good for society as a whole, though. Sometimes we need strong leaders who do what’s best for our children/grandchildren and not just their directorships after 2-3 terms in office.

I think legalization would be beneficial if only so that the ingredients used and the manufacturing process of the drugs could be monitored and controlled providing safer drug use for people who choose to do it.

The amount of dodgy chemicals doing the rounds is horrendous but that doesn’t put many people off.

No-one ever died of heroin withdrawal, alcohol withdrawal on the other hand can kill you stone dead.
The thing I found really hard to stop though was coke (from cans)

Gotta be worth a try, but as others have said – political suicide. I would argue that the electorate is largely ignorant of what’s good for society as a whole, though. Sometimes we need strong leaders who do what’s best for our children/grandchildren and not just their directorships after 2-3 terms in office.

I reckon the opposite is true and the public are actually ahead of the politicians on this one. I don’t have the figures to hand but I’m sure there’s quite a few surveys out there which show the public being broadly in favour of at least decriminalisation and maybe full legalisation. It’s a good example of the politicians not doing what the public and the various key stakeholders (police, medical profession, scientific community etc) want for fear of annoying vested corporate interests who are opposed to it.

quite a few surveys out there which show the public being broadly in favour of at least decriminalisation and maybe full legalisation.

bet those are all for weed, as soon as someone shouts “but what about heroin/crack?” everyone goes “oh well erm, not those obviously!”. They are the big bad bogey men of the drugs world – unlike the booze and fags.

bet those are all for weed, as soon as someone shouts “but what about heroin/crack?” everyone goes “oh well erm, not those obviously!”.

Yes probably, but as the prohibitors are keen on telling us, cannabis is a gateway drug so legalisation of that should surely lead to the rest of them being legalised too 🙂 I’d add ecstasy to the list of drugs that the public would accept as legal too. Judging by the various numbers you hear (last one I heard was 1.5 million pills being consumed in the UK every weekend) there can’t be many people left in the UK who haven’t taken a pill at some point.

there can’t be many people left in the UK who haven’t taken a pill at some point.

1

and another.

and another..