The Legalisation Of Ecstasy

I think ecstasy should be legalised, this isn’t just me saying “Oh yea this drug is cool! Lets ask people to get it legalised!”

Im making an extremely valid point when saying the legalisation of safe drugs (Drugs that have not shown any worse side effects than ones that are already mainstream and legal, after many many years of use)could actually make the public safer than stereotypically thought

Why is this idea important?

I think ecstasy should be legalised, this isn’t just me saying “Oh yea this drug is cool! Lets ask people to get it legalised!”

Im making an extremely valid point when saying the legalisation of safe drugs (Drugs that have not shown any worse side effects than ones that are already mainstream and legal, after many many years of use)could actually make the public safer than stereotypically thought

Do NOT decriminalize cannabis…

…LEGALIZE it.

It is important people undrestund the difference between legalizing and decriminalizing.

Legalization is the process of removing a legal prohibition against something which is currently not legal.

Legalization is a process often applied to what are regarded, by those working towards legalization, as victimless crimes, of which one example is the consumption of illegal drugs .

Legalization should be contrasted with decriminalization, which removes criminal charges from an action, but leaves intact associated laws and regulations.

Why is this idea important?

…LEGALIZE it.

It is important people undrestund the difference between legalizing and decriminalizing.

Legalization is the process of removing a legal prohibition against something which is currently not legal.

Legalization is a process often applied to what are regarded, by those working towards legalization, as victimless crimes, of which one example is the consumption of illegal drugs .

Legalization should be contrasted with decriminalization, which removes criminal charges from an action, but leaves intact associated laws and regulations.

Prohibition of drugs causes crime, de-criminalise them!

 

We are all aware that the fight against drug use and abuse over the last 50 years has failed spectacularly, no one can deny this.

We are also aware that the increasing use of drugs illegally has increased the levels of crime and violence to levels not seen in the last 100 years.

The number of public servants, social workers, police, NHS staff etc has risen to levels never required before, this is in response to the attempt to stop the  illegal use of drugs.

The number of people in prisons has exploded, around 84,000 currently.

It would be irresponsible to enact legislation, as proposed by Ken Clarke, to reduce short term prison sentences until the de-criminalisation of drugs is tackled.

Many prisoners are there for petty crime offences to pay for the illegal use of drugs. They will be forced to continue to support their habit / addiction illegally if they are not jailed  and so crime will continue to increase.

It is plainly a nonsense to prohibit drugs, as it would be plainly wrong to end prohibition without a proper structure to allow drug users to avail themselves of drugs legally. 

Now is the time for the Coalition Government to tackle this huge drug issue and put it at the front of our agenda for dealing with many of the problems in our society.

Why is this idea important?

 

We are all aware that the fight against drug use and abuse over the last 50 years has failed spectacularly, no one can deny this.

We are also aware that the increasing use of drugs illegally has increased the levels of crime and violence to levels not seen in the last 100 years.

The number of public servants, social workers, police, NHS staff etc has risen to levels never required before, this is in response to the attempt to stop the  illegal use of drugs.

The number of people in prisons has exploded, around 84,000 currently.

It would be irresponsible to enact legislation, as proposed by Ken Clarke, to reduce short term prison sentences until the de-criminalisation of drugs is tackled.

Many prisoners are there for petty crime offences to pay for the illegal use of drugs. They will be forced to continue to support their habit / addiction illegally if they are not jailed  and so crime will continue to increase.

It is plainly a nonsense to prohibit drugs, as it would be plainly wrong to end prohibition without a proper structure to allow drug users to avail themselves of drugs legally. 

Now is the time for the Coalition Government to tackle this huge drug issue and put it at the front of our agenda for dealing with many of the problems in our society.

How to generate massive tax revenues while significantly reducing crime and its associated cost?

Let me be clear. This isn’t a revolutionary idea – or even unique. It’s a simple, effective approach that will deliver results. If our Government want raise significant tax revenues, while at the same time reducing monetary and social costs, then it’s time for a fresh approach to drugs policy.

I agree that proscribed drugs can be harmful and that they can even kill you. I agree that some poor souls don’t have a sufficient mental constitution, and have the propensity to ‘loose’ their minds thru experimenting with potentially harmful substances. I’m sure a few folk reading this could cite one or two casualties they’ve known, or even heard of, over the years who are good examples of how drugs ‘can’ mess you up.  (Note: Don’t include media hype here as we all know they’re prone to BS)

But here’s the thing. So many everyday items, household good and social institutions all have the capacity to harm or even kill. It’s a fact that swimming pools are more dangerous to kids than guns but we don’t ban them. In the UK more than 1000 people die every year from falling down stairs, while according to the Office of National Statistics only 897 people died from heroin and methadone in 2008 – isn’t this a lethal substance?. Ironically a much larger percentage of people suffer a fatal acute reaction to peanuts than to MDMA, the active ingredient in Ecstasy, which is a Class A banned substance. Who would consider banning peanuts? Mind you that’s another post perhaps…

I agree that even one person dying is tragic – particularly for the family – but it’s time to get real. Deaths from illicit drugs pale into statistical insignificance compared to alcohol and, of course, tobacco. But we don’t ban them do we? No we apply the only viable strategy, which is to license, regulate and tax these industries. So why don’t we do the same with ‘drugs’ then?

Let me say once again – I’m not advocating drug use of any kind. I whole heartedly believe that ‘recreational’ drugs can be deleterious, especially to young impressionable minds. I would prefer that everyone didn’t need a chemical fix for a bad day or even a bad life. But who’s kidding who here. Millions reach for a cigarette, or a glass of wine, or even slice of cake when their shadow calls.  Unless you’re an enlightened being – and I’m sure you believe you are – I’m afraid you’re with the rest of us aspirers, each with our own ‘drug’ of choice, even if you’re too out of focus to realise.

I wrote to Michael Howard (Home Secretary of the day in 1994 explaining why his policy and ‘war of drugs’ could never work and would therefore end in failure. I could have written it verbatim today and it still would be current and spot on. It’s time for positive action not yesterday’s rhetoric. I think the great Einstein perfectly sums up our counter-productive drug policies when he said, “any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius – and a lot of courage – to move in the opposite direction”.

Let’s hope Dave and Nick has what it takes.

Why is this idea important?

Let me be clear. This isn’t a revolutionary idea – or even unique. It’s a simple, effective approach that will deliver results. If our Government want raise significant tax revenues, while at the same time reducing monetary and social costs, then it’s time for a fresh approach to drugs policy.

I agree that proscribed drugs can be harmful and that they can even kill you. I agree that some poor souls don’t have a sufficient mental constitution, and have the propensity to ‘loose’ their minds thru experimenting with potentially harmful substances. I’m sure a few folk reading this could cite one or two casualties they’ve known, or even heard of, over the years who are good examples of how drugs ‘can’ mess you up.  (Note: Don’t include media hype here as we all know they’re prone to BS)

But here’s the thing. So many everyday items, household good and social institutions all have the capacity to harm or even kill. It’s a fact that swimming pools are more dangerous to kids than guns but we don’t ban them. In the UK more than 1000 people die every year from falling down stairs, while according to the Office of National Statistics only 897 people died from heroin and methadone in 2008 – isn’t this a lethal substance?. Ironically a much larger percentage of people suffer a fatal acute reaction to peanuts than to MDMA, the active ingredient in Ecstasy, which is a Class A banned substance. Who would consider banning peanuts? Mind you that’s another post perhaps…

I agree that even one person dying is tragic – particularly for the family – but it’s time to get real. Deaths from illicit drugs pale into statistical insignificance compared to alcohol and, of course, tobacco. But we don’t ban them do we? No we apply the only viable strategy, which is to license, regulate and tax these industries. So why don’t we do the same with ‘drugs’ then?

Let me say once again – I’m not advocating drug use of any kind. I whole heartedly believe that ‘recreational’ drugs can be deleterious, especially to young impressionable minds. I would prefer that everyone didn’t need a chemical fix for a bad day or even a bad life. But who’s kidding who here. Millions reach for a cigarette, or a glass of wine, or even slice of cake when their shadow calls.  Unless you’re an enlightened being – and I’m sure you believe you are – I’m afraid you’re with the rest of us aspirers, each with our own ‘drug’ of choice, even if you’re too out of focus to realise.

I wrote to Michael Howard (Home Secretary of the day in 1994 explaining why his policy and ‘war of drugs’ could never work and would therefore end in failure. I could have written it verbatim today and it still would be current and spot on. It’s time for positive action not yesterday’s rhetoric. I think the great Einstein perfectly sums up our counter-productive drug policies when he said, “any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius – and a lot of courage – to move in the opposite direction”.

Let’s hope Dave and Nick has what it takes.

Legalise Ecstasy

I think Ecstasy should be legal. It has been in regular use in this country for a number of years and seems to have had no ill effects. It could be manufactured and sold through pharmacies.

Why is this idea important?

I think Ecstasy should be legal. It has been in regular use in this country for a number of years and seems to have had no ill effects. It could be manufactured and sold through pharmacies.

Repealing (or radically amending) the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

It is time that the UK government finally admitted that the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 is a failure. It fails to prevent drug use, it fails to adequately distinguish between the relative harms of drugs and it fails to protect society from the negative consequences of the illegal drug trade.

 

The Act does not make sense from any scientific perspective. Ecstasy 'mdma' (class A) is not as dangerous as heroin or cocaine. In fact the science shows that ecstasy is a relatively benign drug, with very few deaths compared to most Class A drugs and even alcohol and tobacco. Statistically ecstasy is safer than horse riding. Pretending that it is deserving of Class A status sends out the wrong message and makes a mockery of attempts to control drug use in a meaningful way. This is just one example of how the Act fails to adequately classify drugs. There are many more.

 

Criminalizing drugs does not prevent or deter use. This is a fact. What it does do is criminalize people who would otherwise be perfectly law-abiding citizens. Those drug users who do currently steal to fund their habits do so because of the fact that drugs are illegal and therefore expensive. Criminalizing drugs actually generates more crime.

 

Criminalizing drugs makes drugs even less safe by pushing production underground and denying regulation. This is one of the most worrying aspects of the Act. Governments should take responsibility for ensuring that if people do take drugs, those drugs are made by proper companies and subject to regulation.

 

The Act also denies the treasury huge sums of potential tax reciepts. The money raised through tax can be used to fund the NHS. Benefitting even non users.

 

Criminalizing drugs is highly punitive. It may seem normal now for drugs to be illegal, but actually its quite a new phenomenon. Human beings have used recretional drugs for millenia. Putting people in cells as 'punishment' for drug use is illiberal, whatever arguments are given for doing so.

 

I am not suggesting that drug use should not be regulated. That would be a silly position to take. Drugs can be dangerous, they can turn lives upside down. Thats why we need to make sure that we have a sensible system of control in place that does not force users underground into the hands of criminals. The Netherlands is a good template for how a new system may take shape. Or we could look at alcohol and tobacco. These are drugs, and the are regulated.

 

This is a matter of civil liberties. It is about us realising that drug users do not belong in prison. They are ordinary people who should be treated as such. Allowing alcohol and tobacco, and then incarcerating somebody for another drug, is plain hypocrisy. It is wrong.

 

If we dont change the law….there is only one winner….organised crime.

 

I would suggest recategorizing drugs into 'hard' and 'soft' categories according to scientifically proven evidence. The Advisory Council should be given authority over this.

 

Soft drugs should be legalised and regulated for sale in licensed premises.

 

Hard drugs should be available on the NHS through a GP.

 

 

 

Why is this idea important?

It is time that the UK government finally admitted that the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 is a failure. It fails to prevent drug use, it fails to adequately distinguish between the relative harms of drugs and it fails to protect society from the negative consequences of the illegal drug trade.

 

The Act does not make sense from any scientific perspective. Ecstasy 'mdma' (class A) is not as dangerous as heroin or cocaine. In fact the science shows that ecstasy is a relatively benign drug, with very few deaths compared to most Class A drugs and even alcohol and tobacco. Statistically ecstasy is safer than horse riding. Pretending that it is deserving of Class A status sends out the wrong message and makes a mockery of attempts to control drug use in a meaningful way. This is just one example of how the Act fails to adequately classify drugs. There are many more.

 

Criminalizing drugs does not prevent or deter use. This is a fact. What it does do is criminalize people who would otherwise be perfectly law-abiding citizens. Those drug users who do currently steal to fund their habits do so because of the fact that drugs are illegal and therefore expensive. Criminalizing drugs actually generates more crime.

 

Criminalizing drugs makes drugs even less safe by pushing production underground and denying regulation. This is one of the most worrying aspects of the Act. Governments should take responsibility for ensuring that if people do take drugs, those drugs are made by proper companies and subject to regulation.

 

The Act also denies the treasury huge sums of potential tax reciepts. The money raised through tax can be used to fund the NHS. Benefitting even non users.

 

Criminalizing drugs is highly punitive. It may seem normal now for drugs to be illegal, but actually its quite a new phenomenon. Human beings have used recretional drugs for millenia. Putting people in cells as 'punishment' for drug use is illiberal, whatever arguments are given for doing so.

 

I am not suggesting that drug use should not be regulated. That would be a silly position to take. Drugs can be dangerous, they can turn lives upside down. Thats why we need to make sure that we have a sensible system of control in place that does not force users underground into the hands of criminals. The Netherlands is a good template for how a new system may take shape. Or we could look at alcohol and tobacco. These are drugs, and the are regulated.

 

This is a matter of civil liberties. It is about us realising that drug users do not belong in prison. They are ordinary people who should be treated as such. Allowing alcohol and tobacco, and then incarcerating somebody for another drug, is plain hypocrisy. It is wrong.

 

If we dont change the law….there is only one winner….organised crime.

 

I would suggest recategorizing drugs into 'hard' and 'soft' categories according to scientifically proven evidence. The Advisory Council should be given authority over this.

 

Soft drugs should be legalised and regulated for sale in licensed premises.

 

Hard drugs should be available on the NHS through a GP.

 

 

 

Repeal Drugs Prohibition

The UK has long participated in the "Global War On Drugs". In spite of this, all research and anecdotal evidence suggests that the use of currently illegal drugs is increasing.

Arguements are made pertaining to the health and societal aspects of drug use being detrimental to the country. This is almost always overstated and often detracts from rational discussion on the subject.

What is proposed?

  • The prohibition of all drugs currently illegal to posses or use should end.
  • Those who wish to purchase previously illegal drugs should be able to obtain them from licenced and reputable vendors such as chemists.
  • Registration could be implemented in order to allow analysis of purchasing patterns to identify those who are potentially at risk from any proven health concerns.
  • VAT to be applied to these sales earning the government much needed revenue.
  • Quality control to be ensured by those licenced to manufacture and supply.

Why is this idea important?

The UK has long participated in the "Global War On Drugs". In spite of this, all research and anecdotal evidence suggests that the use of currently illegal drugs is increasing.

Arguements are made pertaining to the health and societal aspects of drug use being detrimental to the country. This is almost always overstated and often detracts from rational discussion on the subject.

What is proposed?

  • The prohibition of all drugs currently illegal to posses or use should end.
  • Those who wish to purchase previously illegal drugs should be able to obtain them from licenced and reputable vendors such as chemists.
  • Registration could be implemented in order to allow analysis of purchasing patterns to identify those who are potentially at risk from any proven health concerns.
  • VAT to be applied to these sales earning the government much needed revenue.
  • Quality control to be ensured by those licenced to manufacture and supply.