UK - Drug War Rant!

[chrisbx]

The war on drugs continues - it is a war on the very fabric of society and the people of all nations. We must take up the fight and stand up for our human rights and demand a change. Please if you have any interest at all in making a difference follow this link http://www.tdpf.org.uk/ all the tools for debate and your armour for winning this war are there - take up the fight! keep on keeping on brothers and sisters

[Bikelbees]

hit12, I agree with your sentiments on human rights, why do you consider that Transform's site is the way forwards? Can you say what you think is good about their campaigns? Personally I was disappointed that they supported the ban on smoking in public places - not sure if they really interpret "rights" in the same way as some libertarians.

[chrisbx]

Originally Posted by Bikelbees

hit12, I agree with your sentiments on human rights, why do you consider that Transform's site is the way forwards? Can you say what you think is good about their campaigns? Personally I was disappointed that they supported the ban on smoking in public places - not sure if they really interpret "rights" in the same way as some libertarians.

The current approach to tackling the illegal drugs market isn't working, and that debate on policy alternatives is needed today more than ever.
The Transform guide to the debate should be of great interest and a help to anyone who wants to be empowered to make a differance to the the drug laws, and win debates with the politicians who oversee it.Transform is the UK's leading independent voice for drug policy reform.

They did support the smoking ban but if you look back at the blogs when this was debated you will see that they advocated less draconian and more measured response to the risks of smoking.You can see the evidence for this here http://transform-drugs.blogspot.com/...oking-ban.html

The debate realy is not about how libertarian one can be and the very reason for leagalisation and the end of prohibition is that all drugs are dangerous and all carry risks. Leagalisation is the only real way to manage those risks. I think that you give amunition to the prohibitionist if you take the debate into being liberal or left or right.

I believe if you stick to the facts that are plain to see and use the evidence of a 30 year failed drug policy you will always win any debate hands down and the Transform tools for debate does just that.

[Bikelbees]

hit12, thanks for explaining, you are certainly banging the drum for Transform and I cannot deny that this is an interesting organisation certainly engaging with many key issues. I'm not sure what is new, I don't personally support the harm-based reclassification of drugs as the RSA and others want; all it would do is encourage more patronising and expensive controls over substances already regulated such as alcohol and tobacco - why?? I don't see the role of anti-prohibitionists being consistent with harm-reduction, it gives them a mandate to be ever more intrusive and use false health data as they recently did to scupper Transform's generally good work on cannabis (although their top spokesman Danny K's contribution to the media on just how dangerous skunk is needed a good editing).

For me, the powers that be have curtailed freedoms throughout history and are are just not to be trusted with giving away any more rights. Transform are quite open about calling for more controls, not less. I think I see what you are saying; that to present a middle-ground solution would better persuade politicians to solve the problem of drugs being inconsistently criminalised and all the problems associated with criminalisation of drugs. You talk of risks and risk management. The pre-occupation with risk management has led to me having to fill in a form in triplicate every time my son goes on a school outing, even if its just round the corner. The protective role of government is one which bureaucrats are keen to promote with safe sex, safe exercise, safe eating, safe dating, safe sunbathing, safe talking and all the green agenda they have appropriated with new taxes etc - this is because of the hole in politics (what is left and right? Will someone please tell me as I thought that ended after Thatcher and Reagan blew Gorby off) this awful management speak policy thinktank new initiative twiddle here and there type of government (all of the parties) is being presented to fill it. I'm not sure I want to go to a test centre to establish whether I qualify for being able to buy cannabis BP, nor am I convinced that government regulation fits in with drug use per se. I mean, taking drugs is not all about responsibility, safe use etc, it can be, but its also about crossing boundaries, taking risks, experimentation and radical ideas - I cannot see how this can be regulated as such without undermining the whole spirit of it. Transform seem to be borne directly out of the nanny state and this glares out from the link you used - more controls everywhere. All over the place we see calls for government to please protect us from drugs and each other.

I think freedoms need to be won, not requested cap in hand, if you think expressing your beliefs gives the prohibitionist more ammunition, then therein lies the problem, too powerful government, impotent population begging for an adjustment to their oppression to make it work better.

I'm very interested to see what other people think and thanks for starting this thread.

[Broshious]

I have to agree with Bikelbees. Telling people that drugs aren't as harmful as they say is all well and good, but taking that angle leaves any drug open to being banned at any time if some scientist decides to make it so, MDMA anyone?

Even exposing the hypocrisy that allows cigarettes and alcohol, but not other drugs is not the right way to go. Cigarettes are already on the way out, at least in the states, booze may be too firmly entrenched, but that's all they have to say. "We can't stop alcohol, but we CAN stop these other drugs so we're just doing the best we can."

It is either our right to do as we wish right up until we harm another human being or it isn't. All these protective laws and other nonsense are not in the realm of government at all, and SURELY are not in the realm of FEDERAL government.

I'm honestly suprised that not just about everyone on these boards is a libertarian.

[chrisbx]

I agree that freedoms should be won. People that hold power never give that up with out a fight, I do not believe in begging for change or going cap in hand for it. Governments are already mighty powerful and we are in various ways being oppressed in many spheres of life not just drugs. The question is how to make the difference and force a change? Expressing beliefs is one thing but making governments legislate and make sensible laws based on evidence is another. We are free to believe what we want but that will not win the debate and Transform are doing there bit and that’s why they get my nod, we need allies and to be united to win the freedoms you talk about.

[Pondlife]

There's a huge difference between action and "almost action", with the latter being much more common and totally ineffective.

On many civil liberties issues (and that's what I think the drugs issue is at heart), the general approach seems to be that of "boiling the frog". Some people get annoyed, and perhaps reach the point of "almost action", then let off some steam (like I'm doing now) and feel better. I sometimes think that discussions which allow people to let off steam in this way may even be counterproductive because they help them feel better and think that something has been achieved.

For this reason I find it difficult to criticise Transform, or anyone who actually has a cogent plan and tries to do something, even if I may think that some of their concepts are not ideal.

I agree with BB: freedoms need to be won. To win them requires a struggle, but many people, myself included, are very cautious of any type of revolutionary struggle: "always keep a-hold of nurse for fear of finding something worse".

[FuBai]

The problem with getting legalisation is that many of the proponents of the cause use drugs and are thus concerned about police attention. We never know how many quiet, middle class people with steady jobs use drugs. A family relation trained as a doctor in London, and he related the fact that he had many extremely well off buisness men and bankers that would come in with heroin related problems, either because supply had been temporarily cut and they needed to ease thier withdrawal or because they had overdosed etc. He was always surprised by their ability to use heroin regularly and still hold down well payed jobs. These people with thier connections, education and respected position within the community would be the greatest assets of the legalisation movement, but they have far too much to lose to risk coming forward and openly supporting it.

Drug use is so incredibly prevelant; I walked into two separate pubs in my village and talked to complete strangers about thier drug use and the benefits of legalisation, and everyone of them used, had used or was on an illegal substance. These wern't people I chose to talk to because they looked like they might be involved with drugs, I was simply sitting outside smoking a cigarette and musing about the fact that bars now smell of stale beer, sweat and overflowing toilets rather than smoke, which was better IMO, and they approached me asking why I was alone. I ended up talking to a 50 year old who said that he had smoked a 10 bag (16th of an oz) a day scince he was 20. The fact that people were so forward about thier drug use and thier disregard for the laws pertaining to it was actualy quite surprising. Even though I told them that I didn't use any drugs myself I was just a supporter of the legalisation movement they were still happy to be candid with a complete stranger. This point may seem to contradict the above paragraph, but it really helps illustrate it IMO. The people who were discussing thier drug use didn't have that much to lose by it, they were in normal, boring jobs, not community figure heads who do have far more to risk.

It's a complicated but entirley necessary buisness to get legalisation in place; although one thing is sure in my mind - it is either ignorance, incompetence or conspiracy that has maintained the illegality of drugs, and I really hope it's not the latter.