Doctor Says Legalise Drugs

Cocaine should be legal, says top doctor

Professor Sir Ian Gilmore said making drugs such as heroin and cocaine legal would “drastically” cut crime and addicts’ health problems.

State-regulated use of drugs would also save money and avert the need to try to stop drug production in countries such as Afghanistan, he said.

Sir Ian has recently stepped down as president of the Royal College of Physicians, and in a valedictory message to colleagues, he called for laws to be “reconsidered with a view to decriminalising illicit drugs use”. He said: “This could drastically reduce crime and improve health.”

Sir Ian said he agreed with the argument put forward by Nicholas Green QC, the chairman of the Bar Council of England and Wales, who said last month that it was “rational” to consider “decriminalising personal drug use”.

Sir Ian also said he was persuaded by a recent article in the British Medical Journal, which argued that the prohibition of drugs had been “counterproductive”, made many public health problems worse, and stimulated organised crime and terrorism.

Sir Ian said that banning drugs had harmed society. “There’s a lot of evidence that the total prohibition of drugs, making them totally illicit and unavailable, has not been successful at reducing not only the health burden, but also the impact on crime,” he said.

“I’m trying to take a fresh look, as many people have done. There is a strong case for a different approach.”

There should be a “regulatory framework around illicit drugs, rather than a blanket prohibition”.

Evidence suggested that state regulation of drug use “doesn’t increase the number of drug users,” he said.

Regulating drug use would mean “helping people with addiction problems, rather than putting them in prison”.

He also suggested that regulating drug use would save money on policing and on international efforts to reduce the cultivation of narcotics. “It’s more cost effective to try to treat people with drug problems than to close down poppy fields in disparate countries.”

Danny Kushlick of Transform, a drug reform campaign group, said Sir Ian’s statement was “a nail in the coffin” of the current drug laws.

Keith Vaz, chairman of the House of Commons home affairs select committee, said the legalisation of drugs “would simply create the mistaken impression that these substances are not harmful, when in fact this is far from the truth”.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/7949342/Cocaine-should-be-legal-says-top-doctor.html

(so called 'illegal drugs' have been been essential in reducing privacy rights)

This is a thorny issue. I am all for legalisation. The question is, can people handle freedom? Or are we to patronise the public and declare they are "too dumb to know what's good for them". I totally oppose the use of drugs, legal or otherwise, barring some of the medical applications that are legitimate (though many are not, eg ritalin/ADHD). But it's not their legal status that leads me to form that opinion - it's because I know they are harmful. Legalisation would not change my opinion, nor would it change many other peoples' opinions. (In fact, I would suggest the fact that some substances are illegal makes them attractive to stupid kids.)

One thing I will say about the drug legalisation advocates, is imo they are way too 'pro drug' for my liking. It gives people the impression that the only reason they want drugs legal is so they can take them without going to prison. I guess for some that's true, but it certainly puts a lot of people off the idea. I believe (non-government) education and responsibility to be the only solution to the 'drug problem'.

That is the split between the personal sphere and the political sphere. In personal terms I'm against it, but in political terms, I'm all for "no victim, no crime" across the board. The logical implications of that I understand are such a stretch from what we have today, with so many victimless crimes and pre-crimes and thought crimes, and real crimes that go unpunished.

The drug cartel's business depends on thwarting competition. The 'War on Drugs' provides cover for this. As evidence I give you Barry Seal, who I am highly convinced is a "lone wolf"...

Can you imagine "alcohol dealers" bringing crime to a neighbourhood? Well, it did happen once upon a time.

"After several years, prohibition became a failure in North America and elsewhere, as bootlegging (rum-running) became widespread and organized crime took control of the distribution of alcohol". (source)

Why not today? Because it can be traded peacefully and legitimately. Sadly, people want to use alcohol and other drugs. It's not possible or indeed moral to stop them by state action.

The state is organised crime.