> Legal or Illegal
>
> There would seem to be only two possible statuses for a substance to have in
> a society. It is either banned or it is allowed. However there is one other
> option and it is the worst of all. That is where a substance is officially
> banned, but unofficially tolerated to a large extent. This is the situation
> in the western world that cannabis, cocaine and heroine benefit from.
>
> Let's face it if the US and Europe really chose to clamp down on these drugs
> they could. If there was a true war on drugs, and I do mean armies and
> aeroplanes, then the supply of drugs would dry up. If life imprisonment were
> mandatory for dealing even small amounts, as it is for other forms of
> voluntary manslaughter, then suppliers would dry up. If even a 10th of the
> money that was spent on the cold war were directed at tackling drugs within
> a few years the drug problem as we have it now would be a distant memory.
>
> These measures would be severely draconian. It would require the invasion of
> quite a few countries and a field by field eradication of crops. In past
> such campaigns, especially in heavily forested or mountainous areas, have
> been very costly in lives, resources and politically and were often
> unsuccessful. It would also require building whole new prison communities
> and seriously criminalising large portions of the population. All this to
> stop people doing something they voluntarily choose to do, taking
> particular, relatively harmless substances, for most consumers when taken in
> moderation.
>
> I have personally used, and misused, cannabis when I was a lot younger but
> never cocaine or heroine. It did me quite a lot of harm I believe but I
> really did over do it and was probably somewhat susceptible anyway. If I had
> had access to less strong version of the drug, such as home grown or natural
> plant pieces, I am sure I would have preferred them. The effect they have is
> milder, less hallucinogenic and not as prolonged. The concentrated resin
> that was normally available was very strong, made you feel dopey for hours
> and was probably mixed with other drugs.
>
> Even if this were possible it would come at a high price. There would be a
> world war over drugs. Admittedly most of the countries where drugs are
> produced are in no state to defend themselves against two of the greatest
> economic and military superpowers the world has ever known, or from the UN.
> But within the developed powers themselves our civil liberties would be
> severely undermined. Large percentages of the populations under arms, in
> jail or on the wrong side of the law is not great for democracy. Also any
> global war effort would not inhibit the domestic production and laboratory
> synthesis, of drugs such as speed, ecstasy, crank and the like, and would
> probably encourage their take up by users and suppliers.
>
> All this however would be preferable to the situation now. Illegal but
> unofficially tolerated. Tolerated because the problem doesn't seem to be as
> bad as the only possible solution. OK so maybe as much as 50%% of crime in
> our societies is drug related. OK so people are destroying themselves
> everyday from the inside out. OK so many of our young men and women are
> using up their talent and energy on a chemical rush. Well it's not OK and it
> is getting worse.
>
> Drugs, and the criminal organisations that control them, are gaining in
> power not weakening. They are pouring resources gained from crime into
> legitimate business and into the corruption of public representatives. Drugs
> are doing to our society and civilisation what they are doing to
> individuals. They are eating it alive like a cancer picking on our bones.
>
> If there are only three possible courses to be taken in response to drugs,
> and the one we are taking, not illegal or legal, is the worst, then we
> should take one of the other two. Either we destroy drugs at every level of
> production and distribution, perhaps even consumption through regular random
> testing of the population, or we legalise these specific substances. After
> all there are thousands of users and years of experience to show that most
> will not do themselves too much long term harm particularly if they control
> their use.
>
> Legalising would have major attractions. One it would stop the build up, at
> a stroke, of the financial power of the criminal organisations. Secondly it
> would make these drugs comparatively cheap, so that users would no longer
> have to take up crime to afford to use them, and could carry on living in
> and contributing to society. Not only this but the growers of these plants
> would be able to sell to legitimate companies rather than to gangsters,
> releasing themselves and their countries from the iron grip of 'plato o
> plomo', silver or lead, bribe or a bullet.
>
> I am sure that it would also effect the drugs themselves. Obviously they
> would be pharmaceutically clean rather than mixed with any number of
> substances. Less concentrated versions of the drug could also be offered.
> Now the drugs must be shipped across borders in their most concentrated, and
> therefore easily hidden, forms. If the trade was open this would not be
> necessary and more benign less powerful forms of the drugs could be offered
> as safer alternatives.
>
> A situation, somewhat as the one during prohibition in the US, pertains now.
> Instead of people having the odd glass of wine, as now, at that time people
> would drink hard spirits that had been crudely produced. They had to get
> these drinks at a speakeasy, an underground club run by criminals who paid
> off officials to maintain their businesses. Having travelled often quite far
> to get into a club people would not just have a nice chat and a couple of
> beers. More likely they would get completely drunk with all the consequences
> that can have, and pay through the nose for it as well. The similarities are
> inescapable and the solution, or at least the way forward, is the same as
> well.
>
> The availability of relatively cheap, clean, legal and widely distributed
> recreational substances would greatly under cut the market in the remaining
> illegal and more dangerous drugs. Just as with prohibition the criminals
> were cut out of the market almost over night. Not only would great swathes
> of the population no longer have to have a contact with a criminal
> organisation to get access to them but the criminals would not have so easy
> access to the consumers. They would not be in a position to offer them to
> try this or that new drug.
>
> Methamphetamine, crank, crack and speed would most likely become a very
> specialist interest for those who do not know better. These drugs are only
> of any interest, to even hard core users, because they are hopelessly
> addicted to them or they can no longer afford the better and less harmful
> alternatives. This also has a parallel with the prohibition era, instead of
> drinking hard liquor produced in the back words or smuggled illegally today
> we see a very different type of alcohol use in the US. People can pop into a
> local bar for 'quick one', or two, they can enjoy a wonderfully produced,
> subtle bottle of wine or a cocktail. The state has regulated this industry
> ever since.
>
> Many are worried about the state having any involvement in such powerful
> substances. Will the state not just take over and gain the power once held
> by gangsters they ask? Even if this were true it would be preferable to the
> present situation where large numbers of our top officials are involved in
> the drug trade, either directly or by omission, and are not accountable to
> the public for this. If the state is not trust worthy enough to oversee the
> distribution of drugs then should we really be allowing them to control
> nuclear submarines, surely a more serious responsibility?
>
> However like any other major commodity it should, and would almost certainly
> be, controlled by companies. Companies that are in competition, regulated by
> the state, investors, the media and the market. Why the state would have to
> have any more control of this market than it does for food, alcohol and
> tobacco is hard to see? It could legitimately tax, administer and regulate
> it but that would be all.
>
> Some are worried that there would be a great increase in the use of these
> substances if they were legalised. I have to say I agree if we are talking
> in terms of the numbers of people using them occasionally, that certainly
> can be said for alcohol since prohibition. However if we look at the overall
> strength of the drugs this may be different. The milder, and mostly more
> enjoyable and less dangerous, forms of the plants would contain much less of
> the active chemicals. Also the ways of taking them may look quite different.
> Instead of smokers having to mix concentrated resin with tobacco they could
> smoke the plant directly helping many to cut down the health risk they take.
>
> Cocaine is normally inhaled into the nose which can cause severe damage to
> that sensitive membrane. This is partly because this is a very efficient way
> of getting it into the blood system. If legalised cocaine could be dissolved
> in special 'soft' drinks, in different concentrations, just like alcohol is
> today. I am sure many users would opt for mild solutions most of the time,
> just as they do with alcohol, so as to pace their intake. The infrastructure
> is already there in some pubs to serve such solutions and to ensure that
> minors do not have access to them. Also there is some control on over
> consumption and problem consumption from the licensing laws and licensees.
>
> In Holland cannabis is legal to buy and consume in special coffee shops.
> Again this will prevent children from having access and prevents the easy
> removal of the drug from this controlled place. This seems to be a very
> sensible way of administering such a substance and ensures users are in a
> sociable and open environment. Another good thing about coffee shops is that
> alcohol is not a large part of their offering and cannabis and alcohol are
> well known not to mix well or healthily.
>
> Heroin is given in clinics in Switzerland, and the addicts are regarded as
> patients. This has had great effect in reducing drug related crime, and the
> cost associated with it, and the negative individual consequences of drug
> addiction. Heroine itself is not a terribly harmful drug and long term
> users, given a regular and clean supply, can function almost normally with
> no severe side effects. Gradually many can start to come to terms with their
> addiction and perhaps even escape it, just like many smokers do (nicotine is
> perhaps even more addictive than heroine).
>
> If recreational drug use was legitimised in our societies then the whole
> powerful mechanisms of those societies can go to work regulating the use of
> them. Friends and family would monitor people's use, just like they do today
> with alcohol, and give people some feedback and help. People could more
> openly ask for help, education of the public about the true effects could be
> more easily achieved and better techniques for helping addicts could be
> researched. Also the real social causes of large numbers of people, feeling
> the need of these substances can be better addressed when we no longer can
> turn a blind eye to their fate.
>
> Maybe this is the real reason behind our unwillingness to legalise these
> drugs? Do we think it is really not our problem? I believe our democratic
> governments would legalise tomorrow if they thought they would survive the
> political backlash. Well it is becoming our problem and I think it is
> problem that will outweigh all the others our civilisation has faced in its
> history. The next generation has just about to a man or woman tried illegal
> drugs. They know where they can get them and nearly all have friends who use
> regularly.
>
> More and more of them are becoming pray to the criminals and their
> dangerous, expensive and concentrated drugs and their offers of employment.
> Also who knows what new substances are being cooked up, in legal and illegal
> laboratories, right now which will make cannabis and cocaine look even more
> benign in comparison to crank, lsd, crack and their cousins.
>
> More of the wealth of our society is going towards corrupting the police,
> customs, business, banking, producers, producer countries and criminals
> themselves. We can no longer pretend this problem is going away and no
> longer procrastinate. Indecision is leading to the worst of both worlds
> filling the pockets of criminals and corrupting our societies. We either
> truly declare war, and I do mean globally, with all the terrible
> consequences that means or we take the only other option available and
> accept the users as legitimate members of our society.
>
> Do not misunderstand me, I do not want legalisation but I am in favour of it
> and am arguing for it. It is the best, and only I think, option open to our
> societies, and is probably inevitable anyway. How much longer can democratic
> societies refuse to recognise the rights of large numbers of their citizens
> to do something that doesn't harm other people? Normally the principle of
> liberal society is 'be free to do what you want to the extent it does not
> conflict too much with other's freedoms'. After all these chemicals exist
> and is it surprising how effective they are.
>
> If there is a creator God then It must have created these plants as well.
> Anyone who has smoked cannabis will testify how suitable that plant is for
> effecting the mood of a human being. Also whenever I go to the dentist I am
> very pleased if they have some chemicals based on cocaine's properties. I
> can still remember the days when you either got gas or endured the pain, and
> children had to endure a lot of pain. If we could snap our fingers to remove
> all these plants from the world would we do it? If God exists did It do it?
>
> But with making it illegal we are trying to do just that, if a global, and
> internal, war on drugs was really pursued we would be really trying to do
> that. As it is at the moment these drugs and criminals are pretty well
> tolerated by society and officialdom. This is even worse than war because of
> its effect on the corruption of our society, its encouragement of synthetic
> and concentrated drugs, the effect on users, the corruption of various
> coutries and communities around the world and many other ways. So we are
> left with only one option that must be taken sometime, and the sooner it is
> taken the better it will be.