Drug prohibition is like socialism: no matter how badly or how many times it fails, people just keep believing in it.
The other solution, mooted today by police and Iain Dale, of effectively nationalising drug dealerships via the NHS, is socialist and doomed in equal quantities.
My preferred solution is for a Vice Act. Thus, all the main things that humans do that are narcissistic (drugs, prostitution, porn, gamgling) should be treated in the same way: they should be allowed but at the same time clearly marked as not socially constructive. If a person is determined to delve the depths of human depravity then no regulatory force in the world is going to stop him. Instead the role of Government should be limited to ensuring that nobody goes there by accident, that the road to Hell should be clearly signposted.
For example, sex shops and gambling shops should return to being closely controlled with blacked out Windows. They should be forbidden to advertise. Drugs should be sold in the same way and not in a shop that is allowed to sell anything else, especially not another vice, i.e. no mixing drink with gambling or drugs with prostitution.
If drugs were legalised this way, I think the social message that this sent out would be more powerful than prohibitive legislation (as Cameron argues) and drug usage would fall.
As a small businessman myself, I get far more hassle from the authorities than the average drug pusher. I can even go to prison now for not putting my company registration at the bottom of an email. It would be nice to see such bureaucracy and the Health & Safety gestapo decending on the drug dealers, again with a likely decrease in deaths as well as overall turnover.
Finally, I think it's worth noting that drug prohibition is at the root of our problem with Islamic terrorists. If drugs were legal, then bandit states like Colombia and Afghanistan would never have got so lawless or, ironically, so impoverished - and in turn have created ideal breeding grounds for extremists.
9 comments:
Mr. Biscuit what a load of Guano. Legalising drugs would not deflate the Global Balloon one iota . It send the estates of the inner Cities over the edge into meltdown.
NO doubt the situation would rectify itself over time as the introduction of Gin eventually became assimilated into society. This would not help those who suffer the chaos in the meantime .
This is a strictly middle class supposing that you only make in the certain knowledge that nooone will ever listen to you.
Its Liberal trick that and nasty to behold
Evil right wing bastard. Tory drug dealer scum.
Man this artcile is borin. You are a tedious bore.
Anonymous, please email me for a complete refund.
Newmania,
My argument is not a trick but genuine. I agree with you that this policy would cause short term stress. However, as I believe that the purpose the government is the maximisation of freedom, it is the TOTAL number of people who lives are blighted by drugs over the long term that is of paramount importance.
If gin was illegal its severe abuse would still be a problem today. Likewise, drugs and the associated criminal organisations will remain a problem for society as long as prohibition remains. The only way to solve the problem is to assimilate the problem into society. Then the law would reflect the wishes of the people rather than the other way round
"I can even go to prison now for not putting my company registration at the bottom of an email"
No you can't! What a thick comment.
Angry commuter, I take it you're not a company director?
I'm actually a solicitor from a Fleet Street firm and currently on secondment to the compliance office of an investment bank. I'm also a director of two companies. Prior to this, I helped to draft the Companies Act 2006.
So I'll repeat, to help you relax a bit - no drugs needed - you won't go to gaol for omitting the registration details in one email, no more than you would for failure, say, to pay your tax on time. Only repeated non-compliance could result in a custodial sentence.
I think you write too fast. Clearly this is the blogosphere but if you want to make points on, say drug use and its legal treatment, it would help if you got the basic facts about the law right. But perhaps you were scared by some officious notices from a busybody government department? I will grant you the benefit of my doubt.
In summary, you're quite wrong.
Angry Commuter, I though solicitors were supposed to be accurate with words? I did't say that I would go to prison. I said, "I can." Different meaning.
Maybe you should relax a bit and write more slowly. I'm glad you're not representing any of my companies but, judging from the quality of legislation produced by the Govt these days, such sloppiness is to be expected from one of their agents.
I was going to add I've never yet met a company director who thought the Companies Act 2006 was anything other than an over-bureaucratic dog's dinner. But then again if you helped to write it you're probably biased. I'd keep quite about it if I were you: thousands of company directors, especially outside London, would quite happily see you swinging from a lamppost!
On a more serious note, you should be embarrassed for being part of this country's slide towards dictatorship. Maybe the current government won't send me to prison for a trivial breach of company law but you have helped lay the foundations for a future one to do just that. It is a feature of all dictatorial states to have so many complex and often unworkable laws that it is impossible even to know if you've kept within them. The corollary of this is that the government can use the law not merely for justice but for the harassment and even removal of political opponents. You may think this is fanciful but the use of company law is exactly the legal mechanism by which Putin's government has eliminated political opposition.
"Repeated non-compliance," Angry Commuter?
How beautifully Orwellian!
Which "Enforcement Officers" will be alerted?
Post a Comment