I see that so-called legalisation of drugs is back on the political agenda. A number of MPs, led by former Labour Cabinet Minister Bob Ainsworth, have been calling for legalisation.
But, leaving the ethical arguments to one side for the moment, can drugs ever really be legal? Let us say drugs were legitimised tomorrow. Like alcohol and cigarettes they would inevitably be taxed. This would mean that drugs - like alcohol and cigarettes - would be available on the black market. Therefore, the dealers would still be needed - to supply that market. In addition, just as with various strains of tobacco and drink, there would be restrictions. What would happen? Those who wanted the stronger purer variety, would simply buy them off the black market, meaning that drug dealers would be as ubiquitous as ever.
As Alasdair Palmer writes in The Daily Telegraph:
"The reason is simple: making an activity legal does not necessarily stop there being a colossal illegal market. Sex between adults is legal, but that has not prevented the development of a huge sex industry, controlled by criminal gangs who kidnap, rape and enslave the girls involved"
So, even the utilitarian arguments for legitimising drugs are fundamentally flawed. And that is without the strong moral case against destroying society by giving the green light to mass substance abuse.
You can read Alasdair Palmer's article HERE.
by Robert Halfon - www.roberthalfon.blogspot.com
Alcohol and tobacco kill far more people, both absolutely and relatively, than a wide range of recreational drugs.
ReplyDeleteThe prices of currently illegal drugs reflect the risks involved in importing and selling them - they would certainly be cheaper if legal, thus reducing the incentive to trade in them illegally.
The illegal import of tobacco and alcohol is mostly a financial crime, with relatively low penalties, and very rarely custodial ones, which means those who fear being caught are unlikely to respond violently, often with deadly force, as is currently the case with drug dealers. Thus legalisation would dramatically reduce the violence on our streets.
The space in jails required for crimes associated with illegal drugs is expensive and in practical terms capacity constraint means shorter sentences for other criminals - murderers, rapists, paedophiles. Surely our investment in detention would be better focused on crimes that hurt others, not those who make a choice to use drugs?
Where is the evidence for a substantive illegal trade in stronger strains of cigarettes or alcohol? If anything, illegality has led to weaker forms of drugs being in circulation, often cut with far more harmful additives which are often associated with morbidity.
While it is essential we protect those who cannot make sensible decisions about the use of addictive substances e.g. children, it is totally inconsistent to allow the use of tobacco and alcohol while arbitrarily banning other less harmful substances. In doing so we create criminals pointlessly, forego an extremely lucrative source of tax revenue and allow the state to assert its judgement in place of that of the individual. It's wrong to do in principle, pragmatically and financially.
I cannot think of anything worst than legalising illicit drugs. Do these people not realise the impact these drugs have on the people close to drug users & the users themselves. To feed what amounts to poison to our young people is abhorrent to me.
ReplyDeleteDrugs are illegal because they are dangerous, not dangerous because they are illegal.
ReplyDelete•It is irresponsible and stupid to make other harmful drugs freely available to add to the misery and tragic consequences caused by the two we already have, alcohol and tobacco (nicotine).
All of them would have to be legalised and to all ages, otherwise dealers would simply push the others.
It would be difficult to justify keeping prescription drugs restricted if all the others were available.
In every country where the laws have been relaxed, drug use has increased, Sweden, Holland, America (especially Alaska), South Australia. In countries like Japan and Singapore drug use has been virtually eliminated by tough drug laws and aggressive enforcement.
Just because everyone who speeds cannot be caught there are no strident calls for removal of the speed limits.
The incidence of smoking is falling. Around 20% of the population now smoke, down from 30% a few years ago, due in no short measure to smoking prohibition in public places. Are we to accept the smoking of cannabis in public places? Cannabis plants contain more of some of the carcinogens that are present in tobacco, and passive smoking does occur.
Even if legal, drugs won’t be free. Addicts are often unemployable so will still have to get money to fund their habit, mugging and thefts will continue.
Young people will no longer be brought before the courts. They will no longer be steered into treatment and rehabilitation. Who will they turn to for help?
Libertarians say that people have the right to do what they like with their own bodies. Fine! If it doesn’t interfere with others, but it always does. Drugs cause car accidents, crimes are committed, families are destroyed, some become violent and attack people, addicts need treatment at public expense, passive smoking occurs. With liberty must come responsibility, too often liberty is confused with licence.
•Drug-taking is not a victimless crime: parents, siblings and friends are all affected: children of users can be neglected when parents are under the influence, even killed, cocaine and crack using parents have killed young children: where are the rights of the unborn children of drug users? Employers will suffer lost production, poor workmanship and unreliability.
•Alcohol can be consumed safely with no harm to the person or others (except in the case of driving). There are well-known safe limits. In fact a small amount daily may even be good for you. Most of the population drink and do not drink to get drunk. Drugs are taken to alter the mind, to get stoned or get high. But we are ‘stuck’ with alcohol. It has been around commonly in the population for centuries, and is socially accepted. The consumption of drugs in large quantities is a relatively recent phenomenon and the majority of people do not want to see them legalised. Currently there are very many strong voices being raised to curb the consumption of alcohol while a very vocal minority clamours for the legalisation of drugs! It defies belief!
•A decade or so ago, it could be argued that the evidence was not yet in on drugs. No one has ever believed illegal drug use could be eliminated, but there was a defensible view that prohibition could prevent more harm than it caused. Drug use is not a private act without consequences for others; even when legal, it incurs medical and other costs to society. A society that adopted an attitude of laissez-faire towards the drug habits of its citizens could find itself with higher numbers of users. There could be a risk of social abandonment, with those in poor communities being left to their fate.