Dear All
I wrote a post awhile ago on the issue of drugs.
I am returning to the theme of that post because the debate to legalise drugs must and should be had now.
Drugs should be made legal.
We have seen that drugs are the blight on society but they have been with us from the dawn of time and despite several measures, the cycle has failed to be broken by authorities.
The war on drugs has been lost so a different strategy is needed.
There is a phrase;“in it to win it”.The reason for the failures is that most politicians lack the courage to be radical to tackle this issue effectively.
They tackle symptoms rather than causes; they are scared because if they are radical they won’t get re-elected.
Our problem is “Victorian” values which no longer exist except in the political arena.
The drugs market is like any business, and as such it can be bankrupted.
So, what happens if the market is bankrupted, people will still want and take drugs, so why not set up a quango which allows people to buy from the state, the alternative is the status quo where dealers continue to get rich.
Money collected used by the state to fund projects, treatment centres and anti drug measures.
If given a straight choice would the public rather put money into the hands of a drug dealer or the Government?
I would say the Government.
In Europe, particularly Holland the authorities take a liberal view on drugs with “coffee houses” where people can smoke cannabis openly.
The debate has shifted towards legalisation but courage is needed to start somewhere.
Therefore; “in it to win it” is a viable option.
I wrote a post awhile ago on the issue of drugs.
I am returning to the theme of that post because the debate to legalise drugs must and should be had now.
Drugs should be made legal.
We have seen that drugs are the blight on society but they have been with us from the dawn of time and despite several measures, the cycle has failed to be broken by authorities.
The war on drugs has been lost so a different strategy is needed.
There is a phrase;“in it to win it”.The reason for the failures is that most politicians lack the courage to be radical to tackle this issue effectively.
They tackle symptoms rather than causes; they are scared because if they are radical they won’t get re-elected.
Our problem is “Victorian” values which no longer exist except in the political arena.
The drugs market is like any business, and as such it can be bankrupted.
So, what happens if the market is bankrupted, people will still want and take drugs, so why not set up a quango which allows people to buy from the state, the alternative is the status quo where dealers continue to get rich.
Money collected used by the state to fund projects, treatment centres and anti drug measures.
If given a straight choice would the public rather put money into the hands of a drug dealer or the Government?
I would say the Government.
In Europe, particularly Holland the authorities take a liberal view on drugs with “coffee houses” where people can smoke cannabis openly.
The debate has shifted towards legalisation but courage is needed to start somewhere.
Therefore; “in it to win it” is a viable option.
Yours sincerely
George Laird
Thank you for highlighting the problem that drugs should be legalized.
ReplyDeleteThis blog is highlighting on drugs that makes us more aware about that.
ReplyDeleteI commend TCFHR at Glasgow University for, not only their rational stance on illicit drug use, but for also having the moral fortitude to propagate their beliefs; something which is sadly lacking in today's society.
ReplyDeleteOf course, any reasonably intelligent, educated or objectively thinking person couldn't fail to appreciate the odious and nefarious (not to mention politically-driven) nature of the 'War on Drugs' and that it has failed spectacularly.
The only comment with which I would take issue is that drugs are a 'blight' on society; this is fundamentally incorrect. The tragic irony of current drugs policy is that it elicits the mistaken belief that drugs cause so many of society's ills whereas in reality it is drugs prohibition, not drugs per se, which are the causal factors.