Decriminalise all drugs, says ex-minister Bob Ainsworth

Decriminalise all drugs, says ex-minister Bob Ainsworth

www.bbc.co.uk

A former minister with responsibility for drugs policy has called for the decriminalisation of all drugs.

Bob Ainsworth, who oversaw the issue at the Home Office in Tony Blair's government, said the approach of successive administrations had failed.

The Labour MP for Coventry North East, also a former defence secretary, said the current policy left the drugs trade in the hands of criminal gangs.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Is this more about money rather than the health and welfare of many?

Is this an attempt at bringing in an untapped financial resource in order to become a last ditch effort at propping up a deeply damaged financial market?

Obviously, this war on drugs has cost way too much and not just monetary costs. Something has to give.

Education and learning, and an ability to understand the "problem" can be the only way forward.

Most of us know just how corrupt many of the gangs are, but define gangs? Governments? Agencies? or just your general joe public?

Makes you wonder what might creep out of the woodwork should things be made legal, ie, networks already setup and how fast a taxation/control system would be put in place.

www.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by Extralien


I agree with him.
In fact, I believe everything in which all parties involved do so willfully and knowingly should not be illegal. It really boils down to freedom and personal sovereignty.

Two major points are not often considered when speaking of decriminalizing drugs are its effect on the value of currency, and the role of the drug trade in the financing of covert intelligence agency operations.

Firstly, it would mean a huge influx of liquidity (and I mean huge!) that, in fact, exists, but is simply off the books. The result could mean a quite radical devaluation of currency.

And, well the second point kind of speaks for itself. If one is to finance covert operation one certainly does not want to be openly asking parliament or congress for its financing, ergo they look to black market activity.
(The Iran/Contra affair is a well documented example of this.)

All that being said, I would love to see this go through. As was seen in the US after prohibition, organized crime (speaking of alcohol of course) became legitimate business as soon as the law was repealed. It would go a long way in eliminating violence within organized crimes and add a whole lot of money to the public books!

I, frankly don't really see a down side.

He's an hypocrite... Now he's out of power he finally tells it how it is..

Why not when in power when people actually listen..

reply to post by Extralien


There's also a movement in the US to do this as well. I'm not talking about decriminalizing just marijuana, but ALL currently illegal drugs. I believe those who govern want the Sheeple well drugged for what is coming.

Drug-addicted citizens are NOT in any position to fight back. They live for the next fix, controlled by the government.

A "Brave, New World" nightmare....

SeaWind

Originally posted by SeaWind
reply to post by Extralien

 

There's also a movement in the US to do this as well. I'm not talking about decriminalizing just marijuana, but ALL currently illegal drugs. I believe those who govern want the Sheeple well drugged for what is coming.

Drug-addicted citizens are NOT in any position to fight back. They live for the next fix, controlled by the government.

A "Brave, New World" nightmare....

SeaWind

Congrats, you know nothing but propaganda. There are of course people who will be irresponsible as there are people who irresponsibly eat too much, eat crap all the time, drink too much, have unsafe sex with a lot of partners e.c.t. but when has locking people up ever helped?

The brave new world nightmare is the prison system full of non-violent people we have now. Why haven't citizens done anything yet? Why do people who have not touched anything but caffeine still vote for a democrat or republican and believe it will make a difference?

I am not sure you should be using the word sheeple without the requisite understanding of freedom, the republic and basic rights to the self and property.

reply to post by SeaWind


yes because you immediately become addicted to a drug once you try it

I just posted this as breakin news not realising this thread was already here.

The figures were finally admitted to about Scotland's methadone users - Half a million of them!!! Out of a population of 5 million!!! It cannot go on. They're actually labelled as 'sick' and so receive incapacity benefit. Methadone is far harder to detox from than heroin but it helps stall the crime wave that goes with feeding a habit. A doctor described us as a nation of fat, happy junkies. (that's those on methadone).

Drug use proliferated with unemployment. One of the reasons why I thought they kept them illegal was to keep liquid cash running through the economy. Of course they should legalise them - the stupid 'war on drugs' is lost. In any event many of the drugs they label as illegal are safer than alcohol. Alcohol is one of the hardest addictions to break.

Half a million - unbelievable.

reply to post by SeaWind

Drug-addicted citizens are NOT in any position to fight back. They live for the next fix, controlled by the government.

What is your point? The sale of drugs to kiddies in grammar school was already happening in the 60's!

Here is the REAL truth about the WAR ON DRUGS

"Findings suggest asset forfeiture is a dysfunctional policy. Forfeiture programs, while serving to generate income, prompt drug enforcement to serve functions that are inherently contradictory and often at odds with the demands of justice." —Mitchell Miller & Lance H. Selva,
Drug Enforcement's Double Edged Sword: An Assessment of Asset Forfeiture Programs
(Twelve month empirical examination of the implementation of laws from within the forfeiture program)

The perversion of law enforcement priorities was also the subject of an empirical study published thirteen years ago. Sociologists Mitchell Miller (University of Tennessee) and Lance H. Selva (Middle Tennessee State University) received the 1994 Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences Award for their undercover study and critical analysis of asset forfeiture's impact on police procedure. Based on twelve months of covert observation from within narcotics enforcement agencies, Drug Enforcement's Double-Edged Sword: An Assessment of Asset Forfeiture Programs described forfeiture as a "dysfunctional policy" that forces law enforcement agencies to subordinate justice to profit.

The Double-Edged Sword undercover researcher observed agencies abandon investigations of suspects they knew were trafficking large amounts of contraband simply because the case was not profitable. Agents routinely targeted low level dealers rather than big traffickers, who are better able to insulate themselves and their assets from reverse sting operations. The report states: "Efficiency is measured by the amount of money seized rather than impact on drug trafficking."

A reverse sting operation, where the officer becomes the seller who encourages the suspect to commit a crime, "was the preferred strategy of every agency and department with which the researcher was associated because it allowed agents to gauge potential profit prior to investing a great deal of time and effort." More importantly, the narcotics units studied preferred seizing cash intended for purchase of drugs supplied by the police, rather than confiscating drugs already on the street. When asked why a search warrant would not be served on a suspect known to have resale quantities of contraband, one officer responded:
"Because that would just give us a bunch of dope and the hassle of having to book him (the suspect). We've got all the dope we need in the property room, just stick to rounding up cases with big money and stay away from warrants."

In one case an agency instructed the researcher to observe the suspect's daily transactions reselling a large shipment of coc aine so that officers could postpone making the bust until after the majority of the drug shipment was converted to cash. This case was only one of many in which the goal was profit rather than reducing the supply of drugs reaching the street.

Thirteen additional years of policing for profit have now entrenched agencies in a dependency on forfeiture revenue that continues to subordinate the pursuit ot justice to the pursuit of profit.

"A conflict of interest between effective crime control and creative fiscal management will persist so long as law enforcement agencies remain dependent on civil asset forfeiture."
—John L. Worrall, Department of Criminal Justice, California State University, San Bernardino, Addicted to the drug war: The role of civil asset forfeiture as a budgetary necessity in contemporary law enforcement, Journal of Criminal Justice Volume 29, Issue 3, May-June 2001, Pages 171-187.

To put it bluntly the police are in it to make money not to stop "crime" and everyone knows it. With that type of attitude within the police you will never see the problem "cleaned-up" so why the heck don't we make it legal and tax the heck out of it?

reply to post by crimvelvet


I don't know about being 'in it to make money' although your post goes some way to explaining that. I am truly shocked at the figures released yeterday that half a million Scots out of a total population (incl. children and pensioners) of just 5 million is a real shocker. That's just heroin - coc aine is the actual drug of choice these days. (I can't handle coke heads - they think everyone else is stupid - and they are everywhere).

Even though on the streets we can see there are serious drug issues in this country this is the first time they've told us how serious it actually is.

You won't find more compliant or apathetic people than the Scots - all they care about is getting 'out their face'. (not everyone obviously) Despite the problem being so huge there are few rehab units to help people detox. Obviously they haven't wanted the problem sorted out, very probably, because of the apathy it induces in the populace.

Originally posted by Somehumanbeing
reply to post by SeaWind

 

yes because you immediately become addicted to a drug once you try it

Where did you hear that?
I used to snort stuff through my nose for about two years and stopped out of my own free will.
I used to smoke funny things in High school every day for about 6 years, and decided to stop from one day to another, so I did.
I have not touched that stuff ever since, and it's been about ten years.

It depends on the specific drug....some cause a mental addiction such as marijuana, where as some such as heroin cause a physical addiction.

I find it very sad to see that a topic like this has relevance for many people here on ATS. Drugs ruined the life of many people I know, and almost ruined mine. Drugs never helped anyone, and never will. Please people, I know that there is no Forum in the entire Internet, which combines so many brilliant minds as ATS does. It would be a shame to see all that go to waste....

Here is how drugs should be dealt with:

Decriminalize the soft drugs like marijuana and coc aine. This encourages the purity of these drugs (which vastly improves the safety) while making it less of a cartel industry. These drugs, in their purest form, are natural; the problems contributed to coke especially is that when it hits the consumer, it is rarely even 50%, and made up of dangerous stuff like foot powder, caffeine pills, or even bleach (which some dealers use as a tactic to kill off other dealer's consumers to destroy his market).

For hard drugs, as in anything manufactured like crack, meth, heroin: ZERO tolerance. Anyone producing and selling these drugs should be strung up and beaten by their peers on the street, and if they don't learn, shoot them.

Ecstasy is the questionable drug. It is manufactured... but if it was decriminalized, then it would be produced with much safer products and will be much safer to handle. Homemade ecstasy is now made with chemicals under the sink and 80% meth with a drop of any type of drug for "flavor"; Lab ecstasy is a whole different story, but exclusive to government use. '___' is in the same vote too.

Pure opium I don't really know about. Asians have used it for spiritual reasons for thousands of years though.

My point is that some drugs need to be decriminalized, but decriminalizing them all IS NOT THE ANSWER.

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
Here is how drugs should be dealt with:

Decriminalize the soft drugs like marijuana and coc aine. This encourages the purity of these drugs (which vastly improves the safety) while making it less of a cartel industry.

My point is that some drugs need to be decriminalized, but decriminalizing them all IS NOT THE ANSWER.

edit on 16-12-2010 by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi because: (no reason given)

How dare you glorify any type of drug on a forum visited by kids and teenagers?

No matter what drug......A DRUG IS A DRUG.
If you don't agree you should consider stopping those specific drugs..

This would be a big mistake on this guy part.

ok certain drugs sure im all for it . but ALL drugs what is he thinking ?

seriously what is he thinking?

you need to take into account the short term and long term effects of this idea ...
you got hardcore drug users out there by the millions . and sooner or later kids younger and younger would take up the habit .
more ODs more accidents you name it it would increase 10 fold

reply to post by Pakd-on-mystery


How can you get angry about that on this thread? This is about our ex drugs minister stating the war on drugs is lost and we should consider a new approach. Granted he should have said it when he was in office but he's still the most senior polititian to speak in this way. When his administration was in office they sacked the expert advisor who said that not all drugs were as bad as claimed.

Time for honesty - not propaganda.

Originally posted by christina-66
reply to post by Pakd-on-mystery

 

How can you get angry about that on this thread? This is about our ex drugs minister stating the war on drugs is lost and we should consider a new approach. Granted he should have said it when he was in office but he's still the most senior polititian to speak in this way. When his administration was in office they sacked the expert advisor who said that not all drugs were as bad as claimed.

Time for honesty - not propaganda.

I get angry, because there are alot of young people, who believe things they read here. If they read phoney posts like that they think "hey, if there not real drugs, why not get hooked up?"
And that is the exact reason for the common use of drugs now a days.
Druggies keep saying "this ain't even a real drug, and it's not that bad", well, i got news for you.
like I said A DRUG IS A DRUG
Only people stuck on drugs consider it not being a drug.
Drugs should not be taken by anyone no matter how "pure", they clog your mind and conclude in loosing reality.

At last some common sense from a British MP when discussing drug use.

Current policy is obviously not working and is failing everyone concerned except the criminal gangs that control the trade and make obscene amounts of money.

The only shame about this is that he waited until his party was out of power and he has no real influence to enable this.

Originally posted by Pakd-on-mystery

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
Here is how drugs should be dealt with:

Decriminalize the soft drugs like marijuana and coc aine. This encourages the purity of these drugs (which vastly improves the safety) while making it less of a cartel industry.

My point is that some drugs need to be decriminalized, but decriminalizing them all IS NOT THE ANSWER.

edit on 16-12-2010 by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi because: (no reason given)

How dare you glorify any type of drug on a forum visited by kids and teenagers?

No matter what drug......A DRUG IS A DRUG.
If you don't agree you should consider stopping those specific drugs..

edit on 16/12/2010 by Pakd-on-mystery because: (no reason given)

Try living in reality. I don't think kids read ATS, and if they do, then they are probably mature enough to hold a legitimate opinion on the matter.

Really, how dare you ignorantly and blindly discredit drugs? I've lived in British Columbia for 20 years, I have seen drugs shape an entire province in both very good and very bad ways. Do you think pharmaceutical drugs are any safer or better for a person to consume? Because they aren't natural and are designed to specifically change your chemical makeup.

reply to post by Pakd-on-mystery


You are very seriously missing the point. One of the major reasons for kids starting to take drugs is the fact that they are illegal. They feel like wee rebels. If you take away the rebellion factor - which is what the minister is getting at - you remove the mystique. Result - the kids are not interested in taking any of them.

They've been feeding bull propaganda for generations now - one lie - and the kids don't believe a word of anything else. Of course some drugs (especially the latest chemical comounds are extremely dangerous) but also - alcohol is the WORST drug to detox from. Now how many alcoholic 16 year olds do you see?

reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi


Despite what you think, there are kids and teens here.
Opposite to you said, I have never seen anything good come out of drug use. Please explain how drugs shaped your providence in a "very good" way?
Your chemical makeup is also changed by marijuana and every other drug out there.
I did not say pharmaceutical drugs are any better.....you must have missed the line "a drug is a drug"
I am not discrediting drugs, quite the opposite actually.