Paul Flynn wrote:Recently, one of the legal highs was criminalised, and the result in my area was a 300% increase in its use. We cannot go on believing that we are the masters of the universe. We are throwing 2 million or 3 million of our young people into the hands of irresponsible gangsters. We should ensure that these drugs are controlled so that they are kept out of the hands of people with mental ill health and others whose health might be threatened, such as pregnant women. That is the point of a controlled drug, and we will get it controlled only with legalisation. We will carry on with the chaos, waste and cruelty if we continue with our mistaken policy of prohibition.
Glad to hear there are voices for legalization in the UK!
Sadly, the official response seen
here is very discouraging. The response argues that:
1. Cannabis poses a risk to health
> Poor diet, drinking alcohol, smoking cigarretes and leading a sedentary lifestyle pose serious risks to one's health (in the debate transcript, there was a suggestion that alcohol and nicotine would be prohibited if they were discovered today). Should the government make it illegal to do anything that may damage a person's health? How far should the state go to enforce what it deems to be healthy activity?
2. Legalization would not eliminate the black markets.
> No, but it would be effective in reducing their impact and influence. Prohibition of substances is a great way to make said substances the core of a very lucrative business. Prohibition is the pressure by which the prices of relatively cheap goods are driven into the stratosphere and rendered extremely profitable.
3. Legalization would "Send the wrong message"
> What message would be sent, exactly? I hear this rhetoric in the US as well and it baffles me. It's implied that making the substance legal is equivalent to the government approving its widespread use. Should the government take such an invasive role in the lives of the citizens by telling them what they can and cannot do with their own minds and bodies? The message being sent now (via Frank) is hyperbolic and misinformative; is that the right message?
4. There would be costs in relation to administrative, compliance and law enforcement activities, as well as the wider costs of drug prevention and health services.
> The cost of prohibition is not mentioned. Also, the human cost of prohibition is not mentioned. People are already using the substance (and more dangerous synthetic alternatives) and it is already a burden on health services.
5. Prohibition is allegedly working:
Quote:There are positive signs that the Government’s approach is working: there has been a long term downward trend in drug use over the last decade, and more people are recovering from their dependency now than in 2009/10. The number of adults aged 16-59 using cannabis in the last year in England and Wales has declined over the last decade from 9.6% to 6.7%, with cannabis use amongst young adults aged 16-24 and young people aged 11-15 following a similar pattern.
> Do these studies track the increase in usage of synthetic cannabinoids and RCs? Maybe people are no longer seeking out the real thing since there are legal, albeit more dangerous, alternatives available.
Perhaps in time the political atmosphere will change away from "prohibit harder" to something better suited to the reality of human nature and drug use.
EDIT: It appears that soulfood had already posted the government's response earlier in the thread. It's interesting how the UK government issued the response before the debate occurred