Entire legalisation of drugs?

A professor of European political economy at the London School of Economics' European Institute, Willem Buiter, shared his view about drugs in The Financial Times of 8 August 2007: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/f3185d34-4549-11dc-82f5-0000779fd2ac.html. "As an economist with a strong commitment to personal liberty and responsibility, my preference would be to see all illegal drugs legalised. The only exception would be substances whose consumption leads to behaviour likely to cause material harm to others.
(...) So legalise, regulate, tax, educate and rehabilitate. Stop a losing war, get the government off our backs, beat the Taliban and deal a blow to al-Qaeda in the process. Not a bad deal!" Do you agree? How to legislate?

Hello!
I think the solution is always the same : educate and let people be responsible for their acts. There is a lot of problems with drugs, I'll try to list them :

• health : Drugs may alter mind and/or body so should we allow them and pay the consequences (we already have cost problems with public health systems and we'll get more with obesity and old-people in a few years). Scientists are still not sure whether health and mental problems are cause or consequences of taking drugs.
• responsibility : is someone still responsible of his/her acts when (s)he takes drugs? As mad people are not, should we consider someone mind-altered responsible?
• criminal association earn money from drugs, if they can't, there is less problem (still prostitution and weapons ... and that are other problem we can discuss with the same problematic).

In my opinion, all civilizations used to take drugs in the common life, but what about ours? Isn't it a society problem if people have to take drugs to be happy or to enjoy life? Perhaps the problem is not whether legalise or not, but how to find happiness in our life?
(my English is not very good, please do not hesitate to correct me, by private message for example)

I consider word 'drugs' - even the word 'illegal drugs' too wide to
allow formulation of a sensible policy.

Addictive drugs (such as heroin) are different, and they do lead to
" behaviour likely to cause material harm to others .."
such as mugging and theft.

So I would legalize drugs which are not addictive -- and in some cases -
regulate the way they are used and sold.

Peter

What I found interesting in this article was the total absence of the usual moral stance adopted when talking about drugs.
Having an economical and geopolitical approach shows, according to the author, that it's more reasonable to legalise all kinds of drugs, rather than prohibit them.
It reminds me of the approach The Netherlands have chosen to deal with pimping and prostitution : being pragmatic, rather than dogmatic.
The war on drugs seems lost anyway... Why not try another approach ?
Of course, it opens up other kind of questions : the place of the use of drugs in our societies, what kind of regulations should be set up, who deals with them...
And the same process could apply to immigration : how much costs the process of chasing illegals ? Isn't it more fruitful to host immigrants and lead co-developement programs rather than to develop very costful border monitoring tools and to chase immigrants and bring them back home ?

I agree with pf... there is a huge difference...
Its the same with drugs that are used for medical reasons: some of them are free, others need prescription...
I think that would be a good approach. Legalize drugs. But to get the people to see a doctor who tells you about the risks and disadvantages of drugs.
Its funns: There are now four people responding at this discussion, and everybody is more or less pro legalization. I dont think its representative.
As far as i know every party who did fight for the legalization for drugs lost their elections.

One more pro legalization post
I also think it would be much simpler to legalize drugs than to fight a loosing battle. Unfortunately this seems to be a very liberal forum. I would also love to hear an anti legalization argument, but I guess any conservative reading this thread would now be afraid to post here for fear of being flamed to death
In any case I think that legal drugs would net plenty of tax money for the state, which would by far surpass any social drawbacks. This would provide more money for drug education and anti drug social campaigns as well as rehabilitation. Furthermore even hard drugs could be strictly controlled and provided by the state. It is cheaper to provide a clean place and a clean needle for a heroin addict than to fight the spread of disease and crime caused by drug addiction. Case in point is Switzerland ( http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/44417.php ) where such policy seems to have had a positive overall effect.
Furthermore, government controlled drugs would be less of a health hazard to users, because the amounts of active substances would have to be controlled by special institutions and anybody buying their drugs could read a leaflet, which would note the precise contents of the drug, would provide information regarding "safe" use and situations where use would be too dangerous as well as a warning regarding possible side effects.
And the drugs would be cheaper too In essence a win win situation for both the society and the user.
Why this hasn't happened yet is clear to me. Most of the population still regards drugs as a threat and youths are not active enough when it comes voting. If this thread is a reasonable indication, the situation may change drastically in ten years or so.

Oh yes and please watch this episode from the If... series by BBC for a visual representation of my arguments:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5MVaTKXyYA

N.B. there are five more parts of this film on YouTube

I'm a conservative against legalization, so neSKAnu just let me get back home from work. ;)
I hope you guys won't eat me alive, hehe.

The question of drug legalization poses much larger question than just of freedom to choose. There are such things as 'standards' that societies should follow. Without standards, we turn into chaos and complete moral depravity.
It's obvious that human beings are far from being perfect, but the answer to that is not giving in to human weaknesses in the name of 'freedom' but to strive for the best and the ideal. The argument that drugs have always been there is completely invalid – murder and pedophilia have always been there too, but nobody sane will claim that these things should be legal.

The obvious question that a person needs to answer is where ones freedom starts to interfere with the freedom of others. Does walking naked in public affect your right to decency in public places? Doesn't a 'culture' in which drugs are allowed make it 'all right' to take drugs? It fact, the state says it is fine, by having a legislation that allows for that. What message does it send?
The arguments whether only soft drugs or all kinds of drugs should be allowed is also somehow missed. Those who propose either of these solutions, in fact, think in the same categories. Because, if you believe that it is personal freedom for somebody to choose to take drugs, then obviously why heroine wouldn't be allowed?

Legalizing 'addictive drugs' is also somehow of a vague notion. Like it or not, all drugs are addictive, only to different degrees. So you are really just talking about the degree drawing the line between addictive and not addictive randomly according to what you think is 'enough'. This venue is dead-ended because with time your perception of what is addictive might change as well. You may wake up one and hear somebody claiming that heroine is not addictive (if you take it once in your life and have bad memories related to that) so why not to legalize it on the same basis as soft drugs today. There is no end to that and no clear answer. Once you start using those 'arguments' you can't stop but to push the limits further.
To say that people are going to take drugs anyway, so the government shouldn't interfere with that is just pure illogical. People are going to corrupt other people, they are going to steal, etc. but these things still remain illegal. Why if people do them? Why not let it happen? You will say, because they affect others' freedom, while allowing drugs doesn't. I would disagree. This affects society as a whole, thus, me personally. If an addict tries to rob me because he/she needs money for drugs (to survive or just 'for fun'), there we have a problem that affects me.
Somehow drawing a comparison between legalizing drugs and illegal immigration, I won't even comment on. Whoever thought of that, please, come back to your senses. Looking at every issue from the perspective of financial costs to the state, is pure wrong. Then, the best thing for the government would be to openly deal drugs and have monopoly on that. Good business with a lot of money not only being saved but generated.
The issue of drugs used as medicines is NOT an issue – these practices are already allowed pretty much everywhere (with a close supervision of a physician). I don't even think there is a need to discuss that.

Thank you bugsior for your response. Your points are definitely valid, in a way. I am completely sure that I couldn't change your opinion, but nevertheless I will try to counter.
For starters this is a question of moral standards, just like bugsior said. No one would argue that paedophilia or murder is morally, ethically and just plain wrong (well except for the murderers and the paedophiles who probably can find justification for their acts). Speaking of murder it is often perfectly legal when it is called war for some strange reason and theft is also legal when it is called nationalisation or debt collection. So it would seem that it is an issue of double standards.
Drug use doesn’t even strike such a definite moral chord as any of the aforementioned activities and yet it is illegal. Even though alcohol, coffee and cigarette consumption is just fine in most of the world. Any medical practitioner will tell you that the three aforementioned substances are addictive, do affect people physiologically and psychologically. Furthermore some of them are more dangerous and give rise to more illegal acts than many of the substances that are considered to be drugs.
Now on to the questions that bugsior asked. First one regarding nudity: well what is wrong with the naked body? The nudity taboo is fairly absurd and I am quite glad that there is at least one city where being naked on the street is not a crime (Barcelona if I remember correctly). After all we’re naked underneath our clothes and have seen plenty of naked people in our lives. How are a few more going to hurt? Second, being able to take drugs and taking them are two separate things. Cigarettes and alcohol are legal everywhere, but is it ‘all right’ to smoke and to drink yourself to a stupor? No, obviously those are both harmful activities and our governments tell us that in every step of the way. So why are those two drugs so exceptional that they are legal? So in essence if a country allows you to smoke and drink does it encourage you to? What kind of a message does that send? The notion of hard and soft drugs is rather interesting too. As I said previously heroin should be legal, in a sense, and in a very controlled fashion in order to mitigate it’s negative impact on the society. That is because a heroin addiction is really it’s no worse than serious alcoholism and leads to the same social problems, and the same social stigma. An addict is an addict no matter what substance he/she can’t survive without.
People do take drugs anyway, legal or illegal. There is no way to stop that, just think back to prohibition in the U.S.A., what good did that do? It only encouraged organised crime. In any case, does it matter if you get mugged by a junkie or by a drunkard? It is still a mugging. And if the person is sober? Yes it is still a mugging. And since times immemorial taking someone else’s property has been a crime ( unless it was committed for morally justified reasons ).
Speaking of state monopolies and drugs, we have a perfect example of state monopoly on alcohol in a number of countries (Scandinavian countries spring to mind first off). They’re doing good business and reducing consumption, so why not apply the same system to other drugs? What would be wrong with that? In essence all legal drugs are a state monopoly, because it is the state that chooses whether to allow a particular brand to be sold. The state also warns us about the risks related to the consumption, health-warning labels etc. No sane drug dealer would tell you that their wares are dangerous.

bugsior,

Thank you for the courage in posting unpopular views.
I will join you.

Your first (valid) point neSKAnu countered with
" People do take drugs anyway, legal or illegal"
" There is no way to stop that" ..

I disagree with his attitude and am offering this compromise plank:

A wise legislator (let's hope it is not an oxymoron) will always
consider cost and difficulty and cost of enforcing law -- but he will never
'just throw up her hands' and go home. Society needs standards.

In case of US prohibitions (both past for alcohol and current for marihuana) the costs were excessive. Use of marihuana in particular, since it is even less addictive then alcohol, is a victimless crime.
In USA they passed a law "three strikes and you are out" which was sold to voters by rhetorics 'we need to keep rapists of the streets".

 Then 'they'  made ' felony possession' laws 

(when you have more then certain amount - even for your own medical use)

more than 30 grams (D Felony 1/2 to 3 yrs, presumptive 1 1/2 yr)
http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/substnce/mari.htm

the jails are now full of people who were caught (or framed) with a joint.

Read this about costs of that in California:
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/moscone/summary.htm

 That is insane and I sure hope we will not import that to Europe.   

The second point: paternalistic government wants to protect us
may also be valid, if we are lucky. My experience is this:

I grew under communism (in what is now a Czech Republic) and I can
tell you that cost of unjust and stupid laws is enormous. Half of the
population does not cooperate with the police (which is the main reason
both prohibitions failed in US) . Whole society becomes sick.

After the 1989 (fall of communism) things changed, most, but not all,
for better . One thing I did not like was the arrival of billboards with
slogans like "The taste of freedom' and picture of young man, sitting
on a gas-guzzler smoking American cigarette.

Another one:
Nech se West (in 'Czech Nech se vést' means 'Let us lead you'
The word West is accepted from English and has emotionally positive meaning. Here group of young people is smoking a different
brand (brand called West = http://www.dirtcheapbutts.com/west.html )
(http://www.jina-priorita.cz/img/zdravi/male/054.jpg "response to 'nech se west'")
I am firmly in the 'law and order' camp when it comes to cigarette advertising.

       No seductive Billboards for any adictive drugs, including alcohol.

               Easy to enforce !! and effective !!!.

For practice of giving to young people in discos free 'samples' of cigarettes or any addictive drugs I advocate stiff prison terms for perpetrators and and very stiff fees for the companies.

I would leave people who grow pot for their own use alone.
I certainly do not need some crooked politician to tell me what is good for my own health. But some people may need advice and protection in some cases.

The politicians who allow this (free samples and billboards) are usually bribed by Phillips-Morris and similar companies. They should live in public infamy (both companies and politicians).
There should be an EU wide ban on that sort of things. (Not that people in Brussels are immune to bribes) but are at least more expensive then those we have in CR.

           Do you, dear fellow citizens of EU, agree with that?

Peter aka pf Blog: Crossroads