You've probably worked out my standpoint on legislation by now - legalise everything (drugs, prostitution, etc.) 1) so that it can be controlled (i.e. the people who manufacture drugs will be less able to cut their coke with things like rat poison and laundry powder), 2) to give people legitimate access to medical and/or police assistance if they find themselves in a situation that could compromise their well-being. If you want to add "3) to make it taxable and earn the government some more money" to that, you can (I'm not a huge fan of taxation, but if it puts new paint on buildings and fixes the pot-holes, then fair enough).
My rationale stems from The Prohibition in the US - people like Al Capone thrived in that environment, pushing the crime rates up across the board. Now that alcohol is legal 1) you need ID to buy it, so teens and children have more limited access, 2) the quality is controlled; manufacturers are required to put alcohol percentages on their products, so that you know whether you can have four glasses or just a wee bit (and the quality is higher. They invented cocktails during the prohibition to disguise the harsh taste of the moonshine), and 3) the industry is no longer run by gangstas. Not that I'm hating on gangstas, but their fondness for capping motherf**kers does tend to drive the murder rate up.
Now, it seems, someone agrees with me. Sir Ian Gilmore, out-going president of the Royal College of Physicians, sent an email to 25,000 RCP members endorsing this article. Feel free to read the article; unlike most academic links I post, this one is written in plain English (it was written, I suspect, for politicians, not scientists, hence the simple language). Basically, it suggests a five-tier drug regulation/availability system:
- Medical prescription and/or supervised venues: for high risk drugs (meth, etc.), injectibles (heroin, etc.) and problem users
- Specialist pharmacist retail: for moderate risk drugs (cocaine, ecstasy, amphetamines, etc.)
- Licensed retailing: for lower risk drugs (one would assume that alcohol and weed would count in this category, although they are fairly risky drugs)
- Licensed premises for sale and consumption: for example, bars, "coffee shops" in Amsterdam. One hopes that these would be staffed by people who knew the effects of the drugs and could help out if something went wrong (or they could just be like bars and throw people out when they get disorderly).
- Unlicensed sales: for things like caffeine drinks that are psychoactive but have shown no harmful long-term effects (I would debate that caffeine is not harmful, but it's widely accepted, so let's leave it at that).
Personally, I think this is a fantastic system. It would allow drug users to be monitored - not that I'm a big fan of Big Brother Watching, but some people don't realise they have a problem. It would be helpful if providers of drugs could monitor the usage habits of their customers, partly because it would provide nice data for statistical analysis (then we could have accurate figures with which to do epidemiological studies), but also because it would signal when someone might be out of control and need a wee talk (perhaps with someone at Narcotics Anonymous)...
...but the government is never going to go for that. Despite the fact that most of them don't think twice about having a glass of the fifth most dangerous psychoactive, politicians like to control what people do. They call it a war against drugs, when really it's a war against gangstas. If they took away the gangstas source of income (namely, illegal drugs), they would find legit jobs (or take up trafficking weapons, one of the two).
My rationale stems from The Prohibition in the US - people like Al Capone thrived in that environment, pushing the crime rates up across the board. Now that alcohol is legal 1) you need ID to buy it, so teens and children have more limited access, 2) the quality is controlled; manufacturers are required to put alcohol percentages on their products, so that you know whether you can have four glasses or just a wee bit (and the quality is higher. They invented cocktails during the prohibition to disguise the harsh taste of the moonshine), and 3) the industry is no longer run by gangstas. Not that I'm hating on gangstas, but their fondness for capping motherf**kers does tend to drive the murder rate up.
Now, it seems, someone agrees with me. Sir Ian Gilmore, out-going president of the Royal College of Physicians, sent an email to 25,000 RCP members endorsing this article. Feel free to read the article; unlike most academic links I post, this one is written in plain English (it was written, I suspect, for politicians, not scientists, hence the simple language). Basically, it suggests a five-tier drug regulation/availability system:
- Medical prescription and/or supervised venues: for high risk drugs (meth, etc.), injectibles (heroin, etc.) and problem users
- Specialist pharmacist retail: for moderate risk drugs (cocaine, ecstasy, amphetamines, etc.)
- Licensed retailing: for lower risk drugs (one would assume that alcohol and weed would count in this category, although they are fairly risky drugs)
- Licensed premises for sale and consumption: for example, bars, "coffee shops" in Amsterdam. One hopes that these would be staffed by people who knew the effects of the drugs and could help out if something went wrong (or they could just be like bars and throw people out when they get disorderly).
- Unlicensed sales: for things like caffeine drinks that are psychoactive but have shown no harmful long-term effects (I would debate that caffeine is not harmful, but it's widely accepted, so let's leave it at that).
Personally, I think this is a fantastic system. It would allow drug users to be monitored - not that I'm a big fan of Big Brother Watching, but some people don't realise they have a problem. It would be helpful if providers of drugs could monitor the usage habits of their customers, partly because it would provide nice data for statistical analysis (then we could have accurate figures with which to do epidemiological studies), but also because it would signal when someone might be out of control and need a wee talk (perhaps with someone at Narcotics Anonymous)...
...but the government is never going to go for that. Despite the fact that most of them don't think twice about having a glass of the fifth most dangerous psychoactive, politicians like to control what people do. They call it a war against drugs, when really it's a war against gangstas. If they took away the gangstas source of income (namely, illegal drugs), they would find legit jobs (or take up trafficking weapons, one of the two).
No comments:
Post a Comment