First of all I should mention that I live in britain. Just so there isn't any confusion.
Yesterday I heard on the radio that the liberal democrat MEP, Chris Davies has called for the legalisation of ALL drugs, including heroin and cocaine. He claims that the current system of prohibition "...creates the profits which drive the growth of the trade," and "...leads to the corruption of our institutions and provides funds for terrorism." He also pointed out that illegal drug users can't be sure of what, exactly, it is they are purchasing.
The green party also call for this.
http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/mfss/drugs.html
Drugscope cheif executive Martin Barnes, however, argues "We are not convinced that legalisation would end the harms caused by drugs and it is difficult to predict what the consequences would be, particularly on levels of use.
"When you consider the huge profits made from tobacco and alcohol smuggling, it would be naive to suggest that legalisation would see the end of the criminal drugs trade."
Now I remember when the "War on Terror" had begun, the comedien Billy Connely said;
"War on Terror? Well I hope it works out better than the war on drugs! Fat lot of good they got there for their 2 billion."
I'm unsure wheather his figure of 2 billion was acurrate but the point is that so much money is being spent trying to keep illegal drugs off our streets and the problem just gets worse. Worse in more ways than one. First of all the numbers of addicts has been increasing exponentially. This results in more money going into the coffers of dangerous criminals. And finally drugs are audulterated and diluted often with quite hazardous chemicals. These "controled substances" are OUT of control.
How could legalising drugs help? Well first of all they could be regulated, ie. dosage and quality assured. Less risk of overdose and NO risk of unknowingly shooting up rat poison. Then they could be taxed. This extra revenue together with the money saved from not trying to arrest drug dealers could be used to improve the health and education systems. Also some of this money could be better used on the local level, in communities, to provide recreation, and counselling services for youths, to help deal with some of the issues which result in drug addiction in the first place.
These arguments have been posed before and shot down with counter claims about the possibility of "giving people the wrong impression - that drugs are safe," and that drug abuse could spiral out of control as a result. But my attitude is that this issue should not be considered on its own. That drug addiction is mearly one symptom of a deeper underlying promblem. That problem is with society itself. We need to rethink the way that we operate, the way we interact with others and the way we think about others aswell as ourselves. The system has to be reworked starting with education. Voter apathy is another problem, certainly in britain. Only 60% of the electorate bothered to turn up last time. Why don't we get taught about government and how it works from an early age?
"Now this is Mr. Brown and his job is to look after the countries money." Then perhaps people wouldn't feel so disconected from it all and a little more empowered. If everybody grew up with some knowlege of how our system works and how it can be changed if needs be, then we might find that less of them would turn to chemical induced oblivion. If reality seemed more plyable, then it would be a little less uncomfortable.
The final point I would like to make here is one pertaining to civil liberties. Surely we should have the right, as fully fledged, "responsible" adults, what we want to do with our bodies. If we want to eat lots of saturated fat and take little exercise, inspite of the known consequences, then who should force us to do otherwise? If, alternatively, we want to drink our way into an early grave, surely it is our prerogative. Indeed there are no laws against these in britain and I'm sure in the USA either. So why then are we told that we are not allowed to use some chemicals and plants, some of which are addictive some of which aren't, some of which do detriment to our health some of which do not? Who makes these decisions and what are their motives? Free for all I say.