I've been thinking a little over the last couple of days about drugs. I haven't spoken to anyone about it, but it seems to me self-evident that most of the harm associated with them derives from their legal status rather than the substances themselves.
The failure of prohibition in the US seems very relevant. What is accomplished by making criminal gangs the only ones able to supply? Has prohibition ever stopped people using a substance? Or is an unwinnable war somehow politically expedient?
About 3-4,000 die on the UK roads a year. It is true that almost the same number (nearly 3000) people died in the UK from overdoses of illegal drugs in 1999, but I'd imagine that the illegality of these substances was a significant contributing factor to their dangerousness. Furthermore, I don't understand what makes the deaths of drug-users somehow more likely to provoke legal bans than the deaths of drivers, passengers and pedestrians.
But forget about the roads. Tobacco causes 100,000 premature deaths in the UK a year. I'd imagine that even if every illegal narcotic under the sun was decriminalised, it'd require a hell of a huge uptake to get anywhere near those kinds of figures.
"Ah - but if its legalised, then people might take them!"
Well, yes. They might. But do you think that you'd be more tempted to take up a modest crack habit in that situation than you are now?
Just a thought really. What do other people think? Is there anything good about narcotic prohibitions?
This message has been edited by Tusko, 31-Jan-2006 12:31 PM
I'll close this one and let you knock yourself out in the Java Lounge!
™ Version 4.2
