lol,, just let people grow their own supplies of cannabis outdoors. It won't be the most potent, but the irony there is that most people would prefer it, if they ever got over the ad hype of super THC content; the plant was over-engineered 30 years ago. And I take your point about "unfathomability": nothing divides a society like the parallel worlds of nonusers vs, the marginalized social pariah existence of the population that uses forbidden substances and patronizes illicit markets. It's often like a one-way mirror, with the criminalized users on the hidden side. Advantage to the criminalized. At least in that respect, even though the rules of the game otherwise work markedly to the disadvantage of anyone whose offenses against the criminal laws are confined to their personal use of forbidden substances. One of the little-acknowledged consequences of user criminalization is that it pushes the pariahs into a society rife with other sorts of criminal activity. A realm where Criminality per se is valorized, the willingness to engage in violence is viewed as an asset, and the ability to cycle through prison sentences is a feature of evolutionary fitness. But remember: the drug dealers and their clientele did not make the rules of that game. That's on the Punitive Moralists.
funny how many of the pro-criminalization arguments are just tossed off as Truisms, instead of speculations. Often ignorant speculations, that lack any factual grounding whatsoever.
"experiments with decriminalisation in North America have also made the downsides obvious. The streets of cities on the West Coast now overflow with human beings decaying alive."
The development of that situation has nothing to do with decriminalization. Decriminalization of personal drugs use--including the most addictive and lethal substances--was a short-lived experiment in a couple of US West Coast cities that's since been rescinded. It was a foolhardy policy for several reasons; there's a profound illogic in decriminalizing use and possession of retail amounts of forbidden substances while continuing the status quo Prohibition laws that conferred a de facto criminal monopoly over the illicit trade, complete with profit premiums. The near-absence of enforcement of laws against public drugs use that were still officially in place only compounded the problems.
But the degradation of modern day skid rows for opioid addicts pre-existed the recent decrim experiments; they're fallout from Drug War criminalization and Prohibition. The West Coast would be a refuge for the lowest tier of addicts from across the US even without the often indulgent social services policies of the cities, simply because it's possible to sleep rough without getting frostbite. And in point of fact, there are parts of the US--like the Kensington section of Philadelphia PA--that play host to addict populations that are at least as derelict and dysfunctional. The law of the land in the US remains User Criminalization and Criminal Control of the Illicit Marketplace, which be far the most popular, lucrative and profitable of all career criminal activities. The homeless skid rows of addicts are the long-term fallut of decades of failed policy.
Meanwhile, in the UK, you once had a system that kept the social problem of addiction largely contained: medical prescription to registered opioid addicts. The program proved to be flawed; the addicts were provided with quantities that were typically too generous for their own use, and they were allowed to carry their supplies home, with the predictable effect of the development of a small-scale diversion market. And, inexcusably, the opioid addicts were also supplied with a regular supply of pure cocaine--which was completely medically unnecessary, and which added to the danger of overdose and compounding addiction problems. The legal cocaine supply was often diverted entirely to the illicit street markets.
All of these were policy mistakes that could have been addressed with some due diligence and added restrictions, such as only allowing access to the legal supply of opioid on-premises, and only making opioids available, not cocaine. But instead of the loopholes being closed, the entire idea was abandoned in a blaze of sensationalist publicity and social hysteria over a diversion problem that--while not utterly mythical--was nonetheless miniscule in comparison to the half-century of Criminalization that has followed. Legal opioid maintenance to registered addicts would contract the illicit market to an enforceable level once again. (Opioid addicts can be distinguished from casual opioid users through the use of narcotic antagonists like Narcan, the effects of which put addicts into instant withdrawal while having minimal effect on non-addicts.) The top goal of drugs policy needs to be removing as much of the illicit market from criminal profiteers as possible. The addicted clientele accounts for 80% of the demand on the illicit market. Take them out of the loop, and the retail outlets begin to dry up and wither away.
This happened to a friend —
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgrr5557k80o
— and made me appreciate the hitherto unfathomable scale of the problem
lol,, just let people grow their own supplies of cannabis outdoors. It won't be the most potent, but the irony there is that most people would prefer it, if they ever got over the ad hype of super THC content; the plant was over-engineered 30 years ago. And I take your point about "unfathomability": nothing divides a society like the parallel worlds of nonusers vs, the marginalized social pariah existence of the population that uses forbidden substances and patronizes illicit markets. It's often like a one-way mirror, with the criminalized users on the hidden side. Advantage to the criminalized. At least in that respect, even though the rules of the game otherwise work markedly to the disadvantage of anyone whose offenses against the criminal laws are confined to their personal use of forbidden substances. One of the little-acknowledged consequences of user criminalization is that it pushes the pariahs into a society rife with other sorts of criminal activity. A realm where Criminality per se is valorized, the willingness to engage in violence is viewed as an asset, and the ability to cycle through prison sentences is a feature of evolutionary fitness. But remember: the drug dealers and their clientele did not make the rules of that game. That's on the Punitive Moralists.
Funny to see such an anti-drug stance from a publication that bemoans smoking bans in pubs.
>Today, the taxpayer would be unable to bear the cost of the inevitable increase in drug consumption.
You do it how you deal with sugar, cigarettes and alcohol - taxes/cesses.
funny how many of the pro-criminalization arguments are just tossed off as Truisms, instead of speculations. Often ignorant speculations, that lack any factual grounding whatsoever.
"experiments with decriminalisation in North America have also made the downsides obvious. The streets of cities on the West Coast now overflow with human beings decaying alive."
The development of that situation has nothing to do with decriminalization. Decriminalization of personal drugs use--including the most addictive and lethal substances--was a short-lived experiment in a couple of US West Coast cities that's since been rescinded. It was a foolhardy policy for several reasons; there's a profound illogic in decriminalizing use and possession of retail amounts of forbidden substances while continuing the status quo Prohibition laws that conferred a de facto criminal monopoly over the illicit trade, complete with profit premiums. The near-absence of enforcement of laws against public drugs use that were still officially in place only compounded the problems.
But the degradation of modern day skid rows for opioid addicts pre-existed the recent decrim experiments; they're fallout from Drug War criminalization and Prohibition. The West Coast would be a refuge for the lowest tier of addicts from across the US even without the often indulgent social services policies of the cities, simply because it's possible to sleep rough without getting frostbite. And in point of fact, there are parts of the US--like the Kensington section of Philadelphia PA--that play host to addict populations that are at least as derelict and dysfunctional. The law of the land in the US remains User Criminalization and Criminal Control of the Illicit Marketplace, which be far the most popular, lucrative and profitable of all career criminal activities. The homeless skid rows of addicts are the long-term fallut of decades of failed policy.
Meanwhile, in the UK, you once had a system that kept the social problem of addiction largely contained: medical prescription to registered opioid addicts. The program proved to be flawed; the addicts were provided with quantities that were typically too generous for their own use, and they were allowed to carry their supplies home, with the predictable effect of the development of a small-scale diversion market. And, inexcusably, the opioid addicts were also supplied with a regular supply of pure cocaine--which was completely medically unnecessary, and which added to the danger of overdose and compounding addiction problems. The legal cocaine supply was often diverted entirely to the illicit street markets.
All of these were policy mistakes that could have been addressed with some due diligence and added restrictions, such as only allowing access to the legal supply of opioid on-premises, and only making opioids available, not cocaine. But instead of the loopholes being closed, the entire idea was abandoned in a blaze of sensationalist publicity and social hysteria over a diversion problem that--while not utterly mythical--was nonetheless miniscule in comparison to the half-century of Criminalization that has followed. Legal opioid maintenance to registered addicts would contract the illicit market to an enforceable level once again. (Opioid addicts can be distinguished from casual opioid users through the use of narcotic antagonists like Narcan, the effects of which put addicts into instant withdrawal while having minimal effect on non-addicts.) The top goal of drugs policy needs to be removing as much of the illicit market from criminal profiteers as possible. The addicted clientele accounts for 80% of the demand on the illicit market. Take them out of the loop, and the retail outlets begin to dry up and wither away.