MPs and Illegal Drugs

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Cannabis & Cocaine were perfectly legal in the 19th century (Sherlock Holmes used the latter).

Sherlock Holmes, eh? I expect the Tooth Fairy and Father Christmas did too.
Rather than legalising something that should be wiped out like smallpox, the police and politicians should start making a bit of effort.

[mangerton]

Fortunately, I've never had quite the same concern about funding our seemingly permanent National Debt whilst enjoying my favourite tipple ..

Quite! That would be several bridges too far!

[Flosshilde]

Sherlock Holmes, eh? I expect the Tooth Fairy and Father Christmas did too.
Rather than legalising something that should be wiped out like smallpox, the police and politicians should start making a bit of effort.

I think Father Christmas was/is on other drugs - probably Fly Agaric (Amanita muscaria).

The point I was trying to make (obviously unsuccessfully) is that if a very popular fictional character like Sherlock Holmes was portrayed as using cocaine as a matter of course its use was clearly unremarkable - not something that would shock Conan Doyle's readers.

The fact that politicians & police have been making a great deal of effort in trying to get rid of cocaine (and other drugs) with a singular lack of success, suggests that it isn't all that simple. Legalisation might be a better route - it couldn't have worse consequences than the present policies.

[Anna]

Blimey

But is it not the point that drugs are lovely and make you feel good?

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

er politicians on legal drugs can be pretty scary ...i remember Suez!

tincture of laudanum anyone?

opium as an element of imperial policy .....

Lat how do you feel about artists etc and 'illegal' drugs?

[eighthobstruction]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txqiwrbYGrs

[Serial_Apologist]

That's a great clip 8th - and I can't normally stand American kids.

[Ariosto]

Well, for what its worth, and that 'aint very much probaby, I think all drugs should be legalised.

Think how much money would be saved from drug related crime, and the costs of trying to police the drugs culture.

It might also become less popular and trendy if its legal.

It might mean I could afford to indulge myself a bit too ...

[Lateralthinking1]

I accept that there won't be agreement on this. For what it is worth, a few points:

Historical Perspectives - Sherlock Holmes is, as has been said, a fictional character. Furthermore, I don't understand at all the "this isn't all new" arguments for deregulation. You could say the same for poor housing conditions, environmental pollution and starvation. None of these things were good.

Those Who Regulate - I believe in greater regulation and enforcement in most areas, not less. However, this for me can only have authority in the hands of certain people. For example, where it doesn't involve those who have done or do one thing and then apply the reverse conditions to everyone else. This then avoids the hypocrisy.

Bans and Freedoms - I also believe historically that such regulation, where measured, has led to greater freedoms, prosperity and equality. Banning doesn't always equal the reduction of freedom. A lot of the examples I mention above could be viewed as a series of bans, eg on the Rachmans. Mainly bans are on the controlling instincts of individuals and companies who seek to rake it in while being dangerously destructive to everyone else. I say here "historically" because when regulation is applied by those who are instinctively non-regulatory in their own practices, the banning is always over-done or under-done, as now.

Failure of Self-Regulation - There is no evidence from history that people have more of an instinct for self-regulation than for regulating others. Where there is more accessibility to drugs of any kind, many go for them hook, line and sinker. This is particularly true in the longer-term among the less well off. You could mention alcohol - Disraeli did - and cigarettes here as examples. Certainly nowadays, use of alcohol and other drugs is promoted by culture which is in the hands of the wealthy.

The Wealthy - As for the wealthy, including celebrities, those who have no money problems, and no real mental llness, dip in and then dip out, or else they spend more money to come off drugs. There is a juvenile dilettantism to it that shows little regard to anyone else. If they do have a change of heart, and many do, it is still directed by a sense of self in that they seek to apply norms to everyone for the sake of their kids. These people rarely have the background or the inclination to comprehend community.

Celebrity - Of course, from Billie Holiday through to Amy Winehouse, celebrity is littered with casualities. They tend to be people who have had easier access to drugs than most. They also tend to be those who have been made more vulnerable in their use because they started out with vulnerabilities. Drugs in that way are essentially aryan - a symbol of "survival of the fittest". I think they may also be more manageable among the averagely less talented. It is very notable how most of the well-known casualties do/did really have talent and often intelligence. Drugs therefore seem to be an enemy to talent.

Art - I do believe that drugs have led to innovation in art and music. However, that is very much a historical point and I don't believe that there are really any new fields that they could take such art forms to readily. In a sense, they were highly effective because they came from fringe perspectives. As soon as they become mainstream, the art goes or at least is diluted.

Prescription Drugs - If all of the obvious are deregulated, then logically you would have to do the same with all prescription drugs. No one ever discusses this point or the issues involved, including any impacts on the effectiveness of such medication as broad immunity occurs with greater use. Those who are on controlled prescription drugs recognise more clearly that drugs are a form of control for better or worse and not a diametrical, rebellious answer to controlling character types.

Violence - Whenever I sense drug usage in a locality, I also always sense guns. This not only scares the living daylights out of me. It also ties in closely in my mind with the far right wing politically. The only real difference is that an overt form of control is exercised in communities rather than nationally. I see no convincing argument as to why where this is addiction and hence desperation, along with money grabbers, there should be any less violence associated with them if they were deregularised. Deregulation would not necessarily mean easy access but it would mean a greater spread of dependency.

Deterrence - The only people who might be put off them are those for whom they are currently unlawfully titillating. As living conditions become ever harsher, this will increasingly be the privileged minority.

Police - I can't see police time as being wasted in this area. Resources need to be given to dealing with violent crime. It is also the case that drugs of any kind, and this includes alcohol, are frequently accompanied by anti-social behaviour.

Cannabis - As I have said, I have a much more relaxed view of cannabis. It is arguably less addictive and less harmful than many of the alternatives. I also think that living conditions are such that they could benefit from more sedation and less speed and hype.

[Flosshilde]

Lateral, your last post is rather confused. You equate making something illegal with regulating it. Alcohol and tobacco/nicotine are legal, but regulated. If something is illegal it is very difficult to regulate, or manage, it. The violence associated with drugs comes about because of their illegality - the case of prohibition of alcohol in the USA demonstrates this, and demonstrates that if something is made illegal then supply & consumption is driven underground, & therefore much more diffiocult to control.

As for your last sentence, are you seriously suggesting people should be doped up so that they tolerate poor living conditions?

[Serial_Apologist]

I accept that there won't be agreement on this. For what it is worth, a few points:

Historical Perspectives - Sherlock Holmes is, as has been said, a fictional character. Furthermore, I don't understand at all the "this isn't all new" arguments for deregulation. You could say the same for poor housing conditions, environmental pollution and starvation. None of these things were good.

Those Who Regulate - I believe in greater regulation and enforcement in most areas, not less. However, this for me can only have authority in the hands of certain people. For example, where it doesn't involve those who have done or do one thing and then apply the reverse conditions to everyone else. This then avoids the hypocrisy.

Bans and Freedoms - I also believe historically that such regulation, where measured, has led to greater freedoms, prosperity and equality. Banning doesn't always equal the reduction of freedom. A lot of the examples I mention above could be viewed as a series of bans, eg on the Rachmans. Mainly bans are on the controlling instincts of individuals and companies who seek to rake it in while being dangerously destructive to everyone else. I say here "historically" because when regulation is applied by those who are instinctively non-regulatory in their own practices, the banning is always over-done or under-done, as now.

Failure of Self-Regulation - There is no evidence from history that people have more of an instinct for self-regulation than for regulating others. Where there is more accessibility to drugs of any kind, many go for them hook, line and sinker. This is particularly true in the longer-term among the less well off. You could mention alcohol - Disraeli did - and cigarettes here as examples. Certainly nowadays, use of alcohol and other drugs is promoted by culture which is in the hands of the wealthy.

The Wealthy - As for the wealthy, including celebrities, those who have no money problems, and no real mental llness, dip in and then dip out, or else they spend more money to come off drugs. There is a juvenile dilettantism to it that shows little regard to anyone else. If they do have a change of heart, and many do, it is still directed by a sense of self in that they seek to apply norms to everyone for the sake of their kids. These people rarely have the background or the inclination to comprehend community.

Celebrity - Of course, from Billie Holiday through to Amy Winehouse, celebrity is littered with casualities. They tend to be people who have had easier access to drugs than most. They also tend to be those who have been made more vulnerable in their use because they started out with vulnerabilities. Drugs in that way are essentially aryan - a symbol of "survival of the fittest". I think they may also be more manageable among the averagely less talented. It is very notable how most of the well-known casualties do/did really have talent and often intelligence. Drugs therefore seem to be an enemy to talent.

Art - I do believe that drugs have led to innovation in art and music. However, that is very much a historical point and I don't believe that there are really any new fields that they could take such art forms to readily. In a sense, they were highly effective because they came from fringe perspectives. As soon as they become mainstream, the art goes or at least is diluted.

Prescription Drugs - If all of the obvious are deregulated, then logically you would have to do the same with all prescription drugs. No one ever discusses this point or the issues involved, including any impacts on the effectiveness of such medication as broad immunity occurs with greater use. Those who are on controlled prescription drugs recognise more clearly that drugs are a form of control for better or worse and not a diametrical, rebellious answer to controlling character types.

Violence - Whenever I sense drug usage in a locality, I also always sense guns. This not only scares the living daylights out of me. It also ties in closely in my mind with the far right wing politically. The only real difference is that an overt form of control is exercised in communities rather than nationally. I see no convincing argument as to why where this is addiction and hence desperation, along with money grabbers, there should be any less violence associated with them if they were deregularised. Deregulation would not necessarily mean easy access but it would mean a greater spread of dependency.

Deterrence - The only people who might be put off them are those for whom they are currently unlawfully titillating. As living conditions become ever harsher, this will increasingly be the privileged minority.

Police - I can't see police time as being wasted in this area. Resources need to be given to dealing with violent crime. It is also the case that drugs of any kind, and this includes alcohol, are frequently accompanied by anti-social behaviour.

I think in general I have come around to Lat's pov on the subject. However:

Cannabis - As I have said, I have a much more relaxed view of cannabis. It is arguably less addictive and less harmful than many of the alternatives. I also think that living conditions are such that they could benefit from more sedation and less speed and hype.

Were it not for the current crop generally in distribution, I would not be averse to use myself. Legalising cannabis would allow people to grow the plant in their gardens if they so wished; but SKUNK is another matter altogether, and I wouldn't touch it with a bargepole.

S-A

[johnb]

I think in general I have come around to Lat's pov on the subject.

Perhaps you would like to tell me what that is, apart from a self indulgent 'chip on the shoulder' rant aimed at a mottley assortment of personal bête noires.

[Lateralthinking1]

Flosshilde - I take your first point to an extent. However, and this links into the second point, does this not depend on whether illegality does drive something underground?

For example, it doesn't seem to me that the illegality of cocaine supply and use has driven it underground. It is rife including where there is management of our social and economic systems.

What I see, particularly in contrast to the huge efforts to change tobacco use, is an unwillingness in the authorities to apply firepower to it, rather than inability. Many know exactly where it is. Arguably all of the drug-based murders among black youth in South London are more to do with this phenomenon than the illegality itself.

On cannabis, I don't advocate it or consume it. I do though think that the speed in modern life is a dangerous madness. I am also supposed to be a liberal with a small "l" by inclination, although I have always been a leftish and rather complicated one, with some old style small "c" conservative leanings.

Basically, I just wanted to give a little with that comment to the other side of the debate. I didn't want people to think that I would go raving mad if they took cannabis when I was there. I wouldn't - and it really doesn't bother me - Lat.

[Serial_Apologist]

Perhaps you would like to tell me what that is, apart from a self indulgent 'chip on the shoulder' rant aimed at a mottley assortment of personal bête noires.

I'm in general agreement with what Lat proposes, not interested in his motivations

[Lateralthinking1]

Serial_Apologist - Thanks for your comments. I agree with you on skunk - Lat.