36 Comments

• MatGB 8th Jan '11 - 9:10am

  Legalise, tax and regulate the lot. Simples. Tax rates should be set, for all drugs, to cover the costs they create for the NHS and policing behaviour of those on them, plus a small surplus to take variance into account.

  The extra tax raised from canabis &c could then be used to cut the duty on alcohol and tobacco down to that cost level.

• Jackyboy86 8th Jan '11 - 9:26am

  Class A should be restricted, Class B + Cocaine should be rationed and taxed. Class C shouldn’t exist and should be free for all.
  As a recovering addict myself, A lot of my mentality was ‘Fk the system’ and I got pleasure from doing stuff that was illegal etc. However, one of the few things that kept my Class A consumption to a reasonable level was the trouble it takes to get it.
  Having discussed it a lot with friends who are also in recovery, I think we sould legalise the less harmful drugs, tax them, and use the money to help keep kids off heroin and crack.
  Have improved support for addicts – they will find a kick whether it’s in heroin or alcohol or whatever. An addict is an addict – regardless of what they take. Making ‘lighter’ drugs more easy to access and ‘hard’ drugs more obscure will bring such people into ‘the light’ and allow them to seek help without fear of incrimination or other reprisal.
  It’ll also take away ‘dealer culture’ which traps people in again and again- and eventually demand for hard drugs will taper off.

• Alisdair McGregor 8th Jan '11 - 9:26am

  We should move away from making legal policy based on drug *use* and towards medical policy based on drug *abuse*.

• James Blessing 8th Jan '11 - 10:36am

  I agree with @MatGB – although the tax on alcohol and tabacco might have to increase if the evidence shows that its costing more when the full impacts are taken into account (i.e. drunk driving, social impact etc)

• MBoy 8th Jan '11 - 10:44am

  Agree with all the above. The only question is timescale. The UK public is probably not ready for immediate legalisation (if you treat adults like children, eventually they behave like children…as they do now with alcohol).

• Duncan Stott 8th Jan '11 - 12:19pm

  The government should commission an independent impact assessment, looking at the costs and benefits of the current regime and comparing it to alternative approaches.

  Given the negative impact of the current situation on addiction rates, property crime, prostitution, organised criminal cartels, gang culture, police/justice/prison resources, substance contamination, physical and mental health, border security, terrorism, dictatorships, the environment, personal liberty, human rights, religious freedom and cultural development, I think there is no good excuse for not assessing whether or not a different approach would be better.

• Leviticus18_23 8th Jan '11 - 1:00pm

  Drugs were decriminalised in Portugal several years ago. Apparently drug use has declined slightly since.

  We should decriminalise drugs. The Daily Mail & The Conservatives (and their lap dogs) will never permit legalisation and taxation. I’m pretty sure this government will get rid of the drugs advisory body and carry on with the same policy.

  A more sensible approach would be – if you are over 18 you can vote, drink beer, smoke and take drugs. Your choice. You can also seek medical assistance if you require it. People producing drugs can declare their income and pay tax.

  The war on drugs is expensive and has utterly failed. Prohibition doesnt work. It’s time for a new approach.

• Ewan Hoyle 8th Jan '11 - 1:21pm

  I think ultimately the best way to reduce harm is to strictly control and regulate all drugs, selling them through licensed outlets (perhaps pharmacists) to people who have gone through an education procedure on their potential harms. There should be different requirements before first use of each drug. Cannabis, perhaps even alcohol and tobacco, you could buy for the first time after you have received appropriate education. More addictive drugs like heroin and cocaine should perhaps call for a cooling off period in which potential users are educated further on the potential harms. before being allowed to use. Preventing anyone from accessing the drug just creates an illegal market, which is obviously undesirable.

  Progress has to come in small steps though for it to be politically viable, and the first of these steps has to be taking drug use out the criminal sphere and regarding it as a medical, psychological or social issue. If users require help in getting off drugs or better managing their use, then we need to make it much easier for them to receive that help than at present. The Portuguese model of retaining prohibition of possession, but regarding it as an administrative offence, means that the government isn’t turning a blind eye to drug use but is encouraging police to refer those in possession of drugs to panels specialising in recommending appropriate treatment or other interventions if required. This has the advantages of making it much easier to divert users experiencing problems (or causing problems) into treatment, making it easier for family and friends to seek help for loved ones, ending unnecessary criminalisation of users, and reducing criminal justice expenditure, while still being seen to be tackling the issue head-on. It is very politically attractive.

  Some drug users, most often crack or heroin users, have to rely on criminal or antisocial activity to raise money for drugs. These users present an enormous burden financially, socially, and emotionally to society and the victims of their crimes. Methadone works for some in curtailing their criminal behaviour, but it is more toxic and addictive than heroin, while giving no pleasure. Prescription of heroin for individuals who don’t respond to methadone or who are priorities for intervention (street prostitutes, habitual acquisitive criminals, heroin dealers) is likely to be more successful in helping such people stabilise their lives by attracting them into treatment. Investment in treatment yields considerable returns, so we should not be shy about greatly increasing investment, especially at a time when criminal justice and policing expenditure could be stretched to breaking point. While the British system historically allowed patients to take away heroin and inject it at their leisure, the more politically viable option would be to follow the Swiss on-site consumption model. There is even the possibility of patients beginning to pay for their treatment increasing over time to incentivise reducing their dose and increase political viability of the scheme.

  Legal regulation of drug markets has to start somewhere, but has to get past the UN conventions first. It is imperative therefore to emphasise the harm reduction potential for strictly regulated legal markets, and to start with a drug whose legalisation would be tolerable to the public but also would allow more effective protection of vulnerable individuals. Cannabis is an excellent candidate for this due to suggestions from scientists that risk of psychosis is increased when you use cannabis under 18 and especially so under 15. Legalising use for the over 18s allows enforcement efforts to be targeted at the few remaining illegal dealers who might be selling to children.

  Sale should start in pharmacists, with education requirements before first sale emphasising the warning signs of psychosis. A wide range of strains should be available so that the illegal market can be minimised and customers can be directed to strains which are safest for them depending upon their reactions to the drug.

  I should probably stop there. These reforms make up to core of a motion I’ll be submitting next week for consideration for Sheffield. Get in touch if you want to add your support.

• NoOffenceAlan 8th Jan '11 - 1:22pm

  1. Classify drugs according to harm caused, based on evidence, not prejudice.

  2. If you are really, really serious about tackling drug (and other) crime, then stuff ‘civil liberties’ and make any-one taking part in a cash transaction of more than prove that the cash came from a legal, tax-assessed source.

• NoOffenceAlan 8th Jan '11 - 1:25pm

  sorry, after “more than” I typed “insert limit here” in characters that were confused with html tags.
  So, I’ll try again.
  2. If you are really, really serious about tackling drug (and other) crime, then stuff ‘civil liberties’ and make any-one taking part in a cash transaction of more than e.g. £1000 prove that the cash came from a legal, tax-assessed source.

• Stephen W 8th Jan '11 - 1:33pm

  Repeal the smoking ban. Stop layering restrictions on smokers and selling tobacco.

  Legalise Cannabis, regulate the strength (i.e. % of THC), tax it and sell it like tobacco.

  Look into what other drugs can be legalised/decriminalised and taxed, regulated on the grounds of whether or not they cause dehabilitating addiction and serious and short-medium term health risks.

  Retain hard-core of illegal drugs that cannot be safely taken without leading to dehabilitating short-term addiction and health problems. Bring in strict rehabilitation programs for addicts and strict punishments for suppliers.

• Adam C 8th Jan '11 - 1:50pm

  There are so many things it could do.

  1) A broad impact assessment. Does the current system constitute good value for money? Is there evidence that other systems could work better? I don’t think this is too much to ask of the present Government.
  2) The current classification system is a joke. Reclassifying ecstasy and cannabis would be a start, and is LD policy. But a completely evidence-based approach isn’t possible without either prohibiting alcohol & tobacco or legalising some currently controlled drugs.
  3) Decriminalisation. A growing number of countries or states are decriminalising personal possession so the UK is rapidly falling behind. Labour and the Tories are an embarassment on this front. The evidence suggests that there’s just no need to give people criminal records or jail time for choosing to use certain substances. If necessary, those caught with drugs could be instead sent to a panel to decide what kind of treatment, if any, is needed. Drug use should be seen as a medical issue, not a criminal one!
  4) Gradually transfer control of policy from the HO/Justice to the Department of Health.

  5) Harm reduction: the UK is pretty good on this front but could do better. For example, this Government should follow the ACMD’s advice and allow groups to give out foil to nudge heroin users into smoking rather than injecting. The waiting list for methadone is often far too long too.
  6) Heroin prescription should be scaled up and up (with good data collection and randomised trials). Trials in the UK have shown good results, as have schemes around the world. The more users using prescription rather than illicit heroin, the better for their health, the more stable their lives, the less crime, prostitution, money going to gangs and terrorists, the lower everyone’s insurance, and the more users in contact with health and social services.
  7) Supervised injecting centres have also been a success elsewhere, completely avoiding overdose deaths (and attendant ambulance costs), and taking users and needles off the streets.

  8) Put pressure on states that have even worse policies. Russia’s lack of opioid substitution or needle exchanges is making the HIV crisis far worse. Many South-East Asian states have drug detention centres where poor drug users (and their families) are thrown without due process or consent, to be abused or do forced labour. Others use the death penalty; while many Latin American countries have prisons and police cells overflowing with the poorest, most insignificant (often female) drug smugglers. The US’s prison system is of course perhaps even more horrifying.

  9) Legalisation and regulation; starting with cannabis and then moving on to others. This is going to take some kind of reform or withdrawal from the UN conventions which, through their bureaucracy and immutability, are a massive obstacle to change. They’re also increasingly contrary to the aims of the UN as a whole and other bodies within it (human rights, security, development, health). Drugs should gradually be moved away from the UNODC towards WHO, who should establish a new Framework Convention, based on that for tobacco control, that can be flexibly extended to other drugs and their regulation. If we want to legalise cannabis, we’re going to have to convince states around the world to ‘let us’. But legalisation in some US states (which is ok under the conventions) should be a game-changer.

• RichardSM 8th Jan '11 - 2:14pm

  @ MatGB – and others saying same

  “Legalise, tax and regulate the lot….”etc

  That’s grossly irresponsible and selfish. If thalidomide or any other drugs give a ‘high’ are we happy to accept babies being born with severe birth defects and malformations, just so that people can have the right to get high on anything they want?

• Anne 8th Jan '11 - 3:23pm

  Having a relative seriously damaged by heroin, his health, whole life and family detrimentaly affected how can anyone legalise it to enable even more people to be tempted? Is it just so rich boys and girls can dabble without being arrested?

• Ewan Hoyle 8th Jan '11 - 3:46pm

  Anne,

  It is important to consider how people start taking drugs. At the moment there are a great many dealers operating in our communities who are trying to get as many people hooked as they can in order to make as much profit as possible or perhaps just to securely fund their own habit. If drugs were to be legal, there should be a zero marketing and branding policy and availability should be restricted to pharmacists. People would have to actively approach pharmacists to ask for the drug rather than have the drug come to them in a moment of vulnerability when drunk or depressed etc. I would hope pharmacists would deliver information to people that would cause them to rethink whether they actually wish to start taking the drug. Dealers presumably only inform their new recruit that the drug is fantastic and they should try some.

  I believe people start taking heroin because people with influence over them want them to. This situation would end if it were provided by pharmacists.

  Legal heroin is a long way off anyway. I think heroin maintenance has to be the next step and could yield great benefits for users and their families.

• Chris 8th Jan '11 - 3:59pm

  There is no defensible reason for criminalising people who are stupid enough to take substances which may damage their health. If I smoke tobacco, drink alcohol to excess (without driving or causing a nuisance to others) or overdose on prescription drugs, I will not be prosecuted.

  But – we must proceed with great caution. Once the genie is out of the bottle it can’t be put back in. Nothing must imply that drugs are cool, let alone harmless. Children must be protected from feckless parents. We must also consider the possibility of drugs tourism from less liberal countries, the USA obviously but many others as well – even Sweden.

• Anne 8th Jan '11 - 4:24pm

  @ Ewan Hoyle
  So you believe an addictive and damaging drug should eventually be available to buy from a pharmacist. Why would anyone go to a pharmacist to buy drugs if they did not think it ‘fantastic’? Why do people start smoking and drinking when everyone knows the effects? Must be safe if you can buy it, If people can actively approach a drug dealer do you honestly think a pharmacist would be more frightening? If someone wanted to take heroin would the pharmacist be legally obliged to sell if to anyone if it were eventually legalised? Users will be able to buy it, not just first timers, would that stop them from funding it illegally? It will likely be the middle classes going to the pharmacy and those who would have been too scared to approach a dealer will then be enabled to try something that they were put off before, no fear of arrest. A rich boys law, the dealers will still be there. Lets get more people legally hooked so they can be easily manipulated, this has been done with alcohol and the young.

• Rosalind 8th Jan '11 - 4:38pm

  I agree with all on here who have suggested an evidence based approach.

  My personal preference would be to legalise most drugs, if only to raise some tax revenue to pay for the hospital treatment when drug users do overdo it.

• richard heathcote 8th Jan '11 - 8:04pm

  my brother is a smoker of pot, over the past 13 years he has been in and out of mental hospitals with a section under mental health rules. It was right he was sectioned as he was a mess and the trigger for this was marajuana. he was a bright kid top set for maths engish etc and gained 7 A-levels. During my visits to see him in the various wards hes been in over the years it is frightening how many people are in there as a result of the odd harmless joint. I think a proper evaluation should be made and all drugs banned as they are bloody harmful. to stop people taking drugs they need to stop with this pandering to addicts pushers etc and lock em up then when it is seen to be highly risky to be associated with that type of culture maybe you will discourage people from getting involved.

  anyone who advocates the use of class b or class c drugs i would suggest you go to your local psyciatric ward and spend a couple of days there to fully understand the harm drugs causes.

• matt 8th Jan '11 - 8:18pm

  I have a very personal view of this, drawn from experience.

  When I was in my early teens, I was dead against all drugs, I lost contact with a lot of school friends who where using drugs, some of whom I had grown up with right from nursery school.

  I had a very troubled childhood, due to being a victim of sexual abuse, however somehow I had managed to stay away from drug use {at that point}

  Instead of falling into the drink and drugs as escapism, I managed to use sport and work to the point of obsession, this was my way of fighting of depression and to avoid facing the realities of what had happened to me

  When I reached my late teens, I found that these “obsessions”, “distractions”, where no longer working for me, I found myself becoming more and more depressed.

  I Ended up bumping into one of my old friends who I had known for many years, catching up on old times, he was a bit of a pot head, but for whatever reasons on this night I decided that Instead of being judgemental, I would try it for myself, then form an opinion.

  At the end of the night, when I went home, I was so Monged out and relaxed, I think it was the first time in years that I had actually had some piece and quiet from my own thoughts, As I recall, It was the best night’s sleep I had, had in years as well.

  From that point, I became a regular cannabis smoker, re-engaged in the old friendships that I had cut ties from previously.

  I am not entirely sure how long it was, from the point that I started smoking cannabis, to the point that I then went on to use other drugs. I do remember though that when one of my mates offered me speed, I thought to myself, what the heck ive tried dope, I might as well try this.

  Would I have tried a class A drug, if I had never crossed the line and started smoking dope in the first place? That is the million dollar question I guess.

  However I made the choices and I crossed the lines, The choices where ones that I made, and I made alone.

  My life then consisted of a very hectic week {I was fortunate to have progressed very early on in my career, through the ranks, due to my earlier obsessions with it} I would then smoke dope in the evenings, And on the weekends, I would then get totally plastered on a amphetamines.

  One drug led to another, until I had tried, Ecstasy, Cocaine and LSD.

  People say that LSD is not addictive, I disagree, though it might not be addictive in the physical sense, I became totally hooked on the want to use this mind altering drug as an escapism from reality and all that was depressing in my life in the real world.

  LSD then became the norm, for most Saturday nights, along with speed, to ease the come downs on a Sunday.

  This went on for a period of time, and for a time, I had managed to keep my work life and my drug use separate. But as my dependency grew on drugs, so it began to infringe on my work.

  I was no longer easily able to cope with my demanding job, I was becoming more and more depressed, and I was starting to use cocaine to get me through the day at work.

  Eventually I ended up having a nervous break down, and I went sick from work.

  I was prescribed anti-depressants, sleeping tablets and at times tranquillizers.

  Eventually, I hit my lowest point and that’s when I became suicidal and took an overdose of medication.

  The truth about my sexual abuse came out. I guess the positive thing to come out of it, was my abuser was arrested and sentenced to 8 years imprisonment.

  I then started to receive counselling for my abuse, and drug use, Eventually I did manage to get off drug use, but it was a massive battle.

  My Career however was in tatters, I had to start from scratch all over again, all the time having to avoid the temptations of drug use again.

  I admit, there have been periods when I have fell of the wagon and into the use of cocaine again, 15 years later, I am no longer able to enjoy a normal social life that includes pubs and clubs, because as soon as I do, I fall of the wagon, I have only recently really begun to accept the fact, that I just cant do these things any more.

  I know first hand how tarnished someone becomes, when they have to declare, medical history.

  I can not get life insurance, due to prolonged period of drug abuse and suicides, which I am forced to declare due to medical records.

  I know first hand how hard it is to get a break from an employer, when you have to declare long term medical conditions, including mental health and any current medication you take. We are all aware of the disability discrimination act, but that does not stop employers being able to ask the questions on an application form, and for you to be legally required to declare the truth on an application form. It is extremely difficult to even get passed the application form stage, if you declare the truth.

  The crunch of my point is though, Do I think drug use made my life worse, Absolutely.

  Drugs gave me a mechanism to escape and avoid realities and depression {for a while)

  Would I have always been plagued by depression anyway, more than likely.

  However what I do know is, the terrible affliction also caused by drug dependency, is just as damaging if not more so.

  That is why, in my opinion, drugs should not be condoned, legalised or decriminalised.

  Sorry for the very personal aspect of the post, Drugs is something that I have very strong feelings and opinions about, hence the reason for feeling the need to share very personal details. I hope I have not caused any distress to anyone due to the nature of the topic

• Adam C 8th Jan '11 - 9:56pm

  I’ve got a few things I’d say to anyone that’s opposed to any change of approach regarding drugs (bearing in mind that I don’t personally use any illegal drugs):

  1) Some may have seen the harms that certain drugs can do (despite being ‘prohibited’). But it’s important to also take a wider look at the harms that prohibition does, from factories in the Amazon to the poor single mothers talked into trafficking, to the thousands killed by cartels, to the corruption, to the terrorists transporting drugs across the Sahara, to the kids on the street who can make far more money dealing than from getting a job, and the addicts committing crime and prostitution and talking others into using. Then there are the direct harms of law enforcement, criminal records etc. which can kill and destroy lives, just like the drugs themselves. So one needs to try to work out – given that prohibition fails to remove drugs or the desire to use drugs from the world – what the best balance is. Particularly as the vast majority of illegal drug users do not have problematic use: if we’re punishing the non-problematic 95% of illegal drug users, we need to have a good reason for it!

  2) A few questions to ask yourself:
  – Is there any reason why a broad review shouldn’t be done – looking at the costs and benefits of current and other systems, and trying to base policy on evidence. I hope everyone can at least get behind that.
  – What about decriminalisation? Portugal has shown that this does not lead to increased use (yet increased numbers going into treatment, and decreased adolescent use), while surveys show that illegal status is not one of the reasons why people don’t use drugs (or do use ‘legal highs’). Similarly, there’s no relation between the strictness of drug laws and levels of drug use (e.g. USA has higher cannabis use than the Netherlands). Treating drug use as a medical rather than criminal issue also ends up making it more pitiful than glamorous.
  – If a drug could be created that produced some desired effect but did no harm or addiction, would that be okay? Is alcohol acceptably harmless? Caffeine? Do you know for a fact that all the many drugs that are currently prohibited aren’t this safe? We’re talking about lots of different substances here and we can’t treat them all the same way (e.g. cannabis and heroin).
  – The death rate for mountaineering can reach as high as the “one death for every 10 successful attempts to climb Everest”. Do states have a similar right to prevent people doing this, an activity that others might be incapable of seeing any justification for (fun? exhiliration?). How about skiing? Horse riding? What level of danger should the state allow people to put themselves in before it steps in to protect them from themselves?

  3) To be really controversial, I’d ask whether liberty has any intrinsic value, and to what extent drugs prohibition is a restriction on freedom of thought, on cognitive liberty (I’ve seen it compared to the Church’s list of books which couldn’t be read, or to “Newspeak” from 1984, “a carefully crafted language designed by the government for the purpose of making unapproved “modes of thought impossible””). However, I don’t think the liberty argument is needed to win the argument in favour of decriminalisation or legal regulation of at least some drugs.

  PS As Ewan said above, get in touch with him if you’re interested in supporting – or commenting on – a new drugs policy motion for Spring Conference.

• Adam C 8th Jan '11 - 10:02pm

  I mentioned above that the Everest death rate is around “one death for every 10 successful attempts” and questioned whether this should therefore be prohibited. I should also ask whether such a prohibition would stop those who want to from doing it? What if we spent millions patrolling its perimeter, and banned the sale of oxygen masks and decent climbing equipment (therefore making it more dangerous for anyone that does try)? Would the world be on balance a better place? I’m not being facetious!; I think the questions I raised in my previous post deserve serious thought.

• Rich 8th Jan '11 - 10:15pm

  The legalisation of most drugs would suck most of the money out of organised crime and put it into the government. How anybody can think that oppressing people’s liberties is worth pumping money into organised crime is beyond me, I can only imagine it’s rooted in religious fear and childish rhetoric.

• Rich 8th Jan '11 - 10:19pm

  matt, do you honestly feel that the state had the duty to try to prevent you from accessing those drugs that you chose to use?

  Do you honestly feel that a course of harm reduction and a system meaning you’d have been far less able to access more serious drugs would have been far worse?

• matt 8th Jan '11 - 11:22pm

  I believe that the state has a duty not to make it easier for people to fall into Drug addiction.

  But I also believe the state has a duty to provide proper access too mental health services, to find out the reason, why maybe many people have developed a severe drug addiction.
  My GP, did not really give 2 hoots, about my initial break down, and reasons for my drug addiction, I was just sent away week after week with my prescription, Until I started abusing those and ended up in hospital. Only then when the truth came out about my past, was I given access to mental health services,

  Life is becoming more and more difficult for many people, There are Millions of people in the uk, now suffering from mental health issues, and a very high percentage of those people, have, and still do, turn to drugs as a form of escapism rather than dealing with reality. This from my own experience is a dangerous comnination

  There are also Millions of people who turn to alcohol for the same reasons of course, which can be just as harmful.

  But I also agree whether Legal or Illegal, If someone is going to make the choice, and cross that line, then they will make those choices.

  As I said, It was me that made that choice and me alone, And I have too take responsibility for my own actions.

  I simply do not agree, that legalising or decriminalising drugs is the right thing to do.

  Legalising ALL substances, some of which that can have profound effects on someone’s state of mind and long term well being “mentally” is something I just cant agree with.

  And even if the government was to legalise it and make money from it themselves, It is not going to stop a trade in the black market.
  You don’t think the drug lords would give up their empire that easily surly? Drugs would just become a Bootlegging Exercise like those who nip off to the continent to buy cheaper fags and booze, The only difference would be the Crime lords would have to cut their profits to undercut the Legalised establishments which where licensed to sell the drug.

  It wouldn’t Stop crime, those addicted to the drugs, would still commit crime to get their fix. It wouldn’t stop prostitution and the high crack dependency that a majority of the Prostitutes have, is dreadful, and just gets them even more in debt and trapped by the people who pimp them out.

  I just don’t think decriminalising or legalising is the answer, certainly not without providing more resources before hands, in to access for mental health specialists for those who lives are addicted to drug addiction and deprivation.

  This maybe spoiling the Freedoms of a recreational drug user, who hasn’t yet fallen foul, to a full on drug addiction.

  Mental health services are having their budgets cuts dramatically, There is a shocking lack of easy access to mental health care professionals, due to lack of funds, Maybe if campaigns started out by helping those whose lives are being made more difficult by drugs, and th reasons why they have developed an addiction, to help get them the help many want and many need,
  Then maybe people would be more willing to look into the laws, for those that want to use drugs recreationally and legally.

• Ewan Hoyle 9th Jan '11 - 12:22am

  I agree with you on many points matt and myself am far more interested in helping the people whose lives are messed up by drugs and who have mental health aspects to their drug use than I am in protecting people’s freedom to use. Long before I got involved in drugs policy I had a letter published in the Independent on Sunday bemoaning the atrocious public awareness of mental health that had failed my schizophrenic brother. I see legalisation as a means to deliver education on mental health issues and to engage with drug users and regularly check up with how they are getting on. I think that we need to massively increase our investment in drug treatment services and I see decriminalisation in the Portuguese model as an excellent way of engaging drug users in that treatment.

  Legalisation will not send a message that use is OK if the government that brings it in says very clearly “We are legalising cannabis (and cannabis will have to be the first) because it is harmful, not because we think it harmless.” This message can only be delivered and believed if sale is from pharmacies and an education procedure is required before first use. Ignorance of drug harms facilitates much of the damage they do, and no dealer worth his salt is going to educate you on all potential harms of the drug before he sells it to you. Legalisation can be a means to reduce harm and use. It has to be a process done carefully, and with the experiences of people like yourself very much at the front of the minds of those implementing it.

• richard heathcote 9th Jan '11 - 3:24am

  the problem you have is if it is leagalised under licence in a pharmacy and people have to jump through hoops to obtain it many will continue to buy from black market dealers for conveniance, i feel people wishing to not have on any official documentation they use drugs would mean they buy from black market dealers rather than official channels.

  i would imagine it will also be restricted by age similar to the sale of alcohol and tobacco leading to under age users being the main source of income for dealers and they will want to push this even more if they lose the people who can obtain it legally from chemsts. i could see our kids being targetted as a means to funding criminal enterprises. the 18 year old limit on alcohol doesnt stop many thousands of underage drinkers every weekend in the uk why would drugs be any different,

• Ewan Hoyle 9th Jan '11 - 10:52am

  Convenience might work against legal supply, but choice, quality, consistency, safety, ethical considerations and price should all work in its favour. The data protection of any records of who has purchased drugs (if there are to be any records) will have to be extremely robust so that users can be reassured. With sale from pharmacies, you could even have customers passing over a prescription slip with their request on it and receiving their cannabis in a closed bag as for other drugs.

  I agree that underage users should be the only remaining illegal customer base, but supplying to underage kids might mean people face 14 years in prison if caught. Contrasted with an £80 fixed penalty notice for supplying alcohol to kids, you can see that it is wrong to compare the two. We might even see sanctions becoming tougher after legalisation because exploiting children for profit is so much more morally reprehensible than the work of the current cannabis dealer.

  At present dealing cannabis is a moderate risk, high reward enterprise. Vastly reducing the customer base, increasing punishment, and increasing the community intolerance of the activity turns it into a high risk, low to moderate reward enterprise. You’d have to be very ideologically determined that the kids must get their weed to continue under such circumstances.

  The start of legalisation has to be done with great care and evaluated and reformed when indicated. It shouldn’t be the top of a slippery slope but the bottom of a tall mountain, with every few yards being surveyed in great detail before progressing. We might have to turn back and climb a different mountain at some point if the better route for policy is in another direction, but we should all aspire to that pinnacle of minimal harm. I think everyone will accept we’re not standing on it now.

• Dane Clouston 9th Jan '11 - 11:06am

  I agree with MatGB. Legalise, tax and regulate the lot.

  Prohibition never works, leads to gangsterism. murder, profits for crooks, far too many people in prison and consequent secrecy which makes it more difficult to help people to get off drugs once they have tried them.

  Look at Mexico, for example.

• Bernie R 9th Jan '11 - 2:37pm

  We’ve got a party policy on drugs haven’t we?

  Has anybody noticed any Lib Dems in government saying a single word about it?

  The Tory Home Office decides that decisions in this area will in future be made on the basis not of rationality and scientific evidence, but rather on the views of the Daily Mail. And the response from the Lib Dems?

  Silence.

  So what’s the point in talking about it here, or drafting motions for conference? What’s the point of paying dues, or campaigning to get them elected, if they do nothing when they get there?

• Anne 9th Jan '11 - 3:36pm

  @ Ewan Hoyle
  Who will benefit from the sales? Pharmaceuticals and their investors? From one set of gangsters to another. Won’t be long before the ‘market’ wants advertising.

• Oranjepan 9th Jan '11 - 5:40pm

  I start with two distinct principles.

  A desire to see a reduction in harm caused by the matter in hand, and a desire to see measurable results from the policy designed to cover it.

  There is widespread agreement that the current policy of prohibition against recreational drugs is neither effective in restricting the trade nor in reducing levels of harm resultant from it, but the debate is misinformed by best guesses and wildly varying estimates derived from selective sources (newspaper headlines, personal experiences etc); it is no surprise that it is an area of serious political contention.

  The alternative to the status quo is in some form of toleration of the trade (limited or otherwise), but this raises problems of classification, regulation and supply.

  At the current time suppliers are not accountable for the regulation of the quality or price of the products which reach consumers and take no responsibility for the conditions surrounding participants in the trade or the environment in which it occurs – as a result everyone risks becoming a victim of the trade at any time.

  The simple fact is that protection of a gun is no protection at all compared with the legitimacy offered by the protection of the law.

  A lack of legal recognition creates conditions of conflict as participants in the trade seek security for themselves and their business: where the law is enforced it escalates the conflict, but if it is selectively applied or ignored it undermines respect for authority and the social relationships between individuals and the institutions of state – and, by association, all official representatives.

  So traders must be accountable – whether we like their trade or not – meaning we must find ways to hold them to account.

  And therefore if society is to create a situation where less harm results from the general trade in recreational drugs then it is necessary to find reputable bodies prepared to take on the responsibility for the chain of production and distribution before they can be given a framework of recognition (including taxation) to do their work.

  If Lloyds, Boots or Superdrug were to come forward and offer suggestions for standards they were prepared to operate (controls on quality and quantity of produce, dosages, labelling, age restrictions, prices etc) then the debate could move forward.

  Until that time society and government will continue to be engaged in a discourse at odds with each other and the divergence between the interests of the people and the interests of state will only continue to grow.

  It’s time for corporations to take some political initiative and step off the sidelines.

• Ewan Hoyle 9th Jan '11 - 5:48pm

  To start off with suppliers could perhaps bid for contracts to provide the cannabis. It would be unlikely to be pharmaceuticals supplying the cannabis as it is an agricultural product. It can be decreed at the outset that marketing will be as close to zero as is possible. Any reform to that would be unlikely as it would face considerable political challenges. I would hope that prices could be independently set at an optimal point dissuading people from use and minimising the illegal market. Any “profits” resulting from this would I hope be directed into drug treatment and education programmes. If use did increase, and I believe it won’t, then we would have more money to invest in treatment services for those who encounter difficulty.

• skott 13th Jan '11 - 1:51pm

  prohibition has caused nothing but murder, fear and uncertanty about where we as a world are going with this drug issue. it seems no cabinet minister has the balls to stand up and say enough of cartels making billions let the governments get the tax and use the cash for differant iniatives. For one how many jobs could be created if cannabis laws were the same as in amsterdam. the politicians have there money in the wood trade so dont expect cannabis to be coming soon.

• skott 13th Jan '11 - 1:56pm

  also the programme shameless is a perfect example of why prohibition does not work.

• skott 13th Jan '11 - 5:36pm

  and just one last issue… the lib dem policy on cannabis is to have cafes like amsterdam so why are they silent in government.This is a perfect way of generating taxes. i thought they were a coalition. To all lib dem politicians get some backbone and stop the murder, crime and fear that is plaging the worlds communities. We need our children to grow up in a safe society. Were not at war with drugs were at war with ourselves. What does the future hold if they were decriminilized.? This has to be a question we have to all ask ourselves because we may make things worse.