There's a mildly interesting post on Mark Easton's blog, in which he concludes "what Portugal's controversial experiment has demonstrated is that, if you take the crime out of drug use, the sky doesn't fall in."
I'm with Milton Friedman, the Adam Smith Institute & The Economist, as well as the more liberal wing of the Labour, Lib Dem and Green parties (and maybe a few Tories, who keep very quiet about it) on this, i.e. what we need is legalisation, regulation (over 18s only, for example), taxation, education and, where necessary, treatment. Provided the tax receipts cover the costs of education and treatment, what's the problem?
Then you can bung in the notional savings, i.e. reduced cost of crime (tens of billions a year) and the fact that we could source a lot of the stuff from Afghanistan (trade is better than aid, and certainly a lot better that occupation). All we'd have to do is wriggle our way out of an oppressive treaty or two ...
What have we wrought in the UK?
10 hours ago
8 comments:
S'funny - they were saying the same about Holland a few years back - before the explosion in organised crime was to big to hide anymore.
OK, Stan. Explain how organised crime works in a legal market. Because there isn't a single historical argument of a reasonably free market* in a product where organised crime has flourished.
* if government sets the costs and conditions of regulation too high, people will still go to the black market.
Stan, see what TimA says. I don't mean some lily-livered half-arsed 'de-criminalisation' (which is the worst of both worlds) but treating all drugs (except maybe crack-cocaine) exactly the same as alcohol and tobacco.
Mark, as you well know, it doesn't work like that. The government needs criminals because it reinforces the command and control [Ayn Rand].
What do you think of the idea of decriminalising drugs, but making it illegal to be high in public?
Seeing as the government has failed to take advantage of this source of revenue, anyone want to buy any weed?
It's tax free..
AC1: Treat them all like alcohol. If you commit crime or disorder when drunk, it's an offence. Being wankered in public is not an offence unless you are also disorderly - being high would be the same.
Similarly if alcohol causes health or social problems, you seek treatment, drugs would be the same. Because drugs are currently criminalised, addicts don't seek help, even if they really do want to come off drugs. This is the key difference in Portugal and may explain the success of the programme.
Equally, outside of bansturbatory-fantasy mode, decriminalising drugs *did* have a substantial positive effect in .nl - which is precisely why most of these measures (aside from some high-profile bits and bobs like the rather sad 'shrooms ban) are being left in place.
Post a Comment